D&D (2024) What could OneD&D to bring YOU back to D&D? (+)

[overgeeked]

Sometimes, I feel like I'm standing at the checkout of Home Depot and the cashier is trying to convince me that I should spackle the same way that I caulk because there's a new set of screwdrivers in aisle four.

I'm struggling to understand the direction of the product or why I'm being told to use it in a particular way.

Which, to me, is an odd take. Because when I'm looking at 5E stuff I get no sense whatsoever that they're trying to have an opinion on how the game should be played. Quite the opposite. It's like they took pains to specifically avoid having any opinion at all how the game should be played. It vaguely waves at several disparate styles of play and does none of them well at all. A common refrain about 5E is that it's the 2nd best edition at several things but isn't the best at being anything except popular. It seems to entirely lack any defining identity whatsoever. I wish the game had some specific goal or identity it was pushing. At least then I could like it or dislike it for what it's trying to do. As it stands it seems to only want to be as bland and milquetoast as possible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which, to me, is an odd take. Because when I'm looking at 5E stuff I get no sense whatsoever that they're trying to have an opinion on how the game should be played. Quite the opposite. It's like they took pains to specifically avoid having any opinion at all how the game should be played. It vaguely waves at several disparate styles of play and does none of them well at all. A common refrain about 5E is that it's the 2nd best edition at several things but isn't the best at being anything except popular. It seems to entirely lack any defining identity whatsoever. I wish the game had some specific goal or identity it was pushing. At least then I could like it or dislike it for what it's trying to do. As it stands it seems to only want to be as bland and milquetoast as possible.

The upcoming edition shift does seem to be moving at least a little in a direction. Not sure if it's toward something or just away from what I'd prefer, but it does seem to be moving.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not out as such but looking at buying less/downsizing.

I don't really need more books as such. They're overpriced book ends atm.

 

[Argyle King]

Which, to me, is an odd take. Because when I'm looking at 5E stuff I get no sense whatsoever that they're trying to have an opinion on how the game should be played. Quite the opposite. It's like they took pains to specifically avoid having any opinion at all how the game should be played. It vaguely waves at several disparate styles of play and does none of them well at all. A common refrain about 5E is that it's the 2nd best edition at several things but isn't the best at being anything except popular. It seems to entirely lack any defining identity whatsoever. I wish the game had some specific goal or identity it was pushing. At least then I could like it or dislike it for what it's trying to do. As it stands it seems to only want to be as bland and milquetoast as possible.

It could be that my perception is mistaken.

However -from answers to rules questions; what's considered "natural" language and intuitive; choices for how to errata or change something; an so-forth -my perception is that there is a particular way that the folks writing the game see it and use it.

If they do, I get the impression that their way differs greatly from pretty much any group with which I've game.

Certainly, there is a wide variety of approaches to rpgs. So, that's not unusual. But what sticks out in particular is some of the "fixes" and actual game design (rules errata, design of feats, changes in how the game works going forward) give the impression that I am playing the game very differently than how the people writing and designing it see it working.

I say that because some of the changes and "fixes" to things go in a direction which I don't feel addresses the underlying issue. So, I'm confused about how some of the improvements are seen as better.

It would help to understand the ideas behind why those changes are occurring. It's difficult to get excited about 5.1 when I feel as though I don't understand the mentality behind the design direction.

Occasionally, even when information is put out, I don't even feel like I'm speaking the same language (which has been true during late 4e and during most of 5e). The words being said seem to mean something different to the people saying the things than how I understand them as a listener.

Maybe that's an issue on my end. Either way, the result is that I have a lot of confusion and uncertainty about the product.

 

[overgeeked]

It could be that my perception is mistaken.

However -from answers to rules questions; what's considered "natural" language and intuitive; choices for how to errata or change something; an so-forth -my perception is that there is a particular way that the folks writing the game see it and use it.

If they do, I get the impression that their way differs greatly from pretty much any group with which I've game.

Certainly, there is a wide variety of approaches to rpgs. So, that's not unusual. But what sticks out in particular is some of the "fixes" and actual game design (rules errata, design of feats, changes in how the game works going forward) give the impression that I am playing the game very differently than how the people writing and designing it see it working.

I say that because some of the changes and "fixes" to things go in a direction which I don't feel addresses the underlying issue. So, I'm confused about how some of the improvements are seen as better.

It would help to understand the ideas behind why those changes are occurring. It's difficult to get excited about 5.1 when I feel as though I don't understand the mentality behind the design direction.

Occasionally, even when information is put out, I don't even feel like I'm speaking the same language (which has been true during late 4e and during most of 5e). The words being said seem to mean something different to the people saying the things than how I understand them as a listener.

Maybe that's an issue on my end. Either way, the result is that I have a lot of confusion and uncertainty about the product.

That's the trouble with "natural" language. It's open to interpretation. The designers meant one thing but instead of flat out saying that they couched it in ambiguous "natural" language, which a lot of people interpret in a lot of different ways...so they have to come in and "fix" things that are due to people interpreting the "natural" language differently than they intended.

It's a game. It should be designed and written like a game. The rules should be explained like game rules typically are. The fluff can be as flowery and "natural" as they like.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It could be that my perception is mistaken.

However -from answers to rules questions; what's considered "natural" language and intuitive; choices for how to errata or change something; an so-forth -my perception is that there is a particular way that the folks writing the game see it and use it.

If they do, I get the impression that their way differs greatly from pretty much any group with which I've game.

Certainly, there is a wide variety of approaches to rpgs. So, that's not unusual. But what sticks out in particular is some of the "fixes" and actual game design (rules errata, design of feats, changes in how the game works going forward) give the impression that I am playing the game very differently than how the people writing and designing it see it working.

I say that because some of the changes and "fixes" to things go in a direction which I don't feel addresses the underlying issue. So, I'm confused about how some of the improvements are seen as better.

It would help to understand the ideas behind why those changes are occurring. It's difficult to get excited about 5.1 when I feel as though I don't understand the mentality behind the design direction.

Occasionally, even when information is put out, I don't even feel like I'm speaking the same language (which has been true during late 4e and during most of 5e). The words being said seem to mean something different to the people saying the things than how I understand them as a listener.

Maybe that's an issue on my end. Either way, the result is that I have a lot of confusion and uncertainty about the product.

Completely agree. Some design insights in the books would be very much welcomed. Doing so when errata is released would also be nice.

One thing about 13th Age I really liked (even though I ultimately fell on the other side of that game) was that they made sure to explain, in the book, why they were making the decisions they were making. The fact that I didn't agree with most of those decisions was less important than that they justified them to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's the trouble with "natural" language. It's open to interpretation. The designers meant one thing but instead of flat out saying that they couched it in ambiguous "natural" language, which a lot of people interpret in a lot of different ways...so they have to come in and "fix" things that are due to people interpreting the "natural" language differently than they intended.

It's a game. It should be designed and written like a game. The rules should be explained like game rules typically are. The fluff can be as flowery and "natural" as they like.

I understand the appeal, but the trouble with separating lore and mechanics is, IMO, that it makes the mechanics far less interesting to read, which makes them less likely to be read, which defeats the purpose of having them. And the same thing happens to the lore, as disconnecting it from the rules makes a certain segment of players disregard it entirely.

In the end, the entire product becomes less appealing.

 

[overgeeked]

I understand the appeal, but the trouble with separating lore and mechanics is, IMO, that it makes the mechanics far less interesting to read, which makes them less likely to be read, which defeats the purpose of having them. And the same thing happens to the lore, as disconnecting it from the rules makes a certain segment of players disregard it entirely.

In the end, the entire product becomes less appealing.

As a counterpoint, most players and DMs don’t bother reading the rules now with their “more engaging” natural language. And many who do bother are confused by the ambiguity of the language. So it’s self-defeating. It’s more interesting, according to you, but if fails at the primary function which is to accurately convey rules information.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As a counterpoint, most players and DMs don’t bother reading the rules now with their “more engaging” natural language. And many who do bother are confused by the ambiguity of the language. So it’s self-defeating. It’s more interesting, according to you, but if fails at the primary function which is to accurately convey rules information.

Well, it is just my opinion, but I found the 5e books far more readable than the 4e ones, and that's a big deal to me.

 

[overgeeked]

Well, it is just my opinion, but I found the 5e books far more readable than the 4e ones, and that's a big deal to me.

Sure. Everyone has their preferences. For me, clearly stated rules in a game book beat all other considerations. I found 4E to be fantastic for that, which made them more readable to me. I also liked the fluff a lot more than 5E. Far more actual lore, inspirational bits and bobs, adventure seeds, immediately useable content, etc.