D&D (2024) What could One D&D do to bring the game back to the dungeon?

[Micah Sweet]

I would have like some additional optional subsystems to drift the game in a particular direction. Though we may be seeing third party support for some of this. Cubicle 7's Uncharted Journeys for overland travel may be the start of 3rd party support for areas not covered in the core game.

IMO, Adventures in Middle-Earth's Journey system started that support, and the exploration rules in Level Up that were inspired by them continued it. Uncharted Journeys is just a well-publisized iteration of the same idea (although that doesn't mean I won't pick it up).

 

[Reynard]

IMO, Adventures in Middle-Earth's Journey system started that support, and the exploration rules in Level Up that were inspired by them continued it. Uncharted Journeys is just a well-publisized iteration of the same idea (although that doesn't mean I won't pick it up).

It looks to me like a way to keep their AiME line going without the license.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, it will have been 10 years and some uncounted new, generally younger and more diverse millions of players have discovered D&D. It would be utterly silly for them to aim at the same people they already recaptured, who are now a small minority of the player base.

Silly from a $ standpoint, yes. But it does feel a bit ungrateful to me; I can't help feeling that way, as much as I get it.

 

[payn]

This is the crux of my concern about the new edition. I believe they were doing it right in 2014 where they were appealing to a base they were trying to bring back in (like me!). But the new direction of the last few years seems to be explicitly moving away from that goal towards what they think all the new people who have joined up since then want. If they're right, what most people want is not what I want, and ultimately that is why they've basically lost me at this point.

What is all that different now than what came about in 2014?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It looks to me like a way to keep their AiME line going without the license.

And whats wrong with that?

That said I think it is a subsystem that has potential.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What is all that different now than what came about in 2014?

If 5e content Tasha's-forward into the new playtest seems the same to you as the 2014 PH, then I don't know what we can talk about.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There seems to be this sentiment that (and I'm only slightly hyperbolizing here) that 1e did dungeons correctly and that the only way to bring that back is to do it the same way. I don't really buy that.

Three things this thread has me thinking about:

1. I'm torn on "load out" and inventory management. Back in the day I thought it was fun to look through the official shopping lists and load up on stuff I might need, and conceptually I really, really like the notion of being worried about running out of torches. But in practice it usually ends up more clerical than actually exciting. I'm not sure what the right solution is. (Again, without having played it I'm attracted to this solution in Five Torches Deep.)

2. I'll admit I hadn't really thought hard about the impact of cantrips, and more flexible spellcasting in general, and I think there are some valid points made here. (I'll give another shout out to Five Torches Deep, for reining in the power of cantrips.)

3. I prefer a middle ground between the old TSR approach to "player skill" which (at least in the way I experienced it) required players to keep asking questions until they asked the correct one, versus the way most people seem to interpret the more modern style, which is a statement of character action resolved by a dice roll. The middle ground I like involves telegraphing and a combination of player skill and dice rolls. (It also seems to me that this middle ground is the intended 5e style, but the authors are a little vague about it so a lot of people choose to bring in a 3e playstyle.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, it will have been 10 years and some uncounted new, generally younger and more diverse millions of players have discovered D&D. It would be utterly silly for them to aim at the same people they already recaptured, who are now a small minority of the player base.

I don't really have a strong position here, but I will say, there have been many booms in the hobby and all of them have faded at some point. Usually when the booms end, it's the player bases that remain and keep things going (and of course much of that base is built on new people coming in). So I think writing off a player like Micah Sweet (or any of the base who came back after 5e was released) is probably a mistake. I think you can keep that crowd, and make changes that appeal to newer fans of the game. I've long been at the point where I realize the game isn't being designed for my tastes, so I don't especially care one way or the other (beyond a general hope that D&D does well because D&D doing well is good for the hobby).

Also we don't know how reflective Micah's views of the hobby as a whole. Perceptions could be wrong here. I think for us to say, well the game has moved on from this crowd or that crowd, is not only possibly an error, but I also don't think it is an especially friendly way for us to be with one another. It may turn out, that D&D needs to cater to younger players who have play style or mechanic preferences that are at odds with Micah's. But in the mean time, I think if a player like Micah wants something in particular from the game, or feels it has moved away from what worked for them in 2014, they should voice that opinion.

I could understand this more if we were talking about some of the truly ancient ideas I've been a fan of. Obviously D&D has moved away from 1983, but 5E isn't that old. It came out only 8 or 9 years ago. So it doesn't sound like Micah is calling for the game to go back to how it was 40 years ago or something.

 

[Maxperson]

Given the amount of dark vision, I can't see why light is going to cause problems.

Because dark vision kinda stinks if you play it RAW. Disadvantage on all visuals is pretty sucky.

 

[Aldarc]

Basic was dungeons, Expert was wilderness, Companion was domains and war, and Master was the search for immortality. It's the version of the game that gave each tier its most distinct function within the overall campaign.

4e followed a similar paradigm. It flat out stated what the characters should be facing and doing at heroic (1-10), paragon (11-20), and epic (21-30) levels of the game.