D&D General Why Enworld should liberate D&D from Hasbro

[UngainlyTitan]

First if all, I haven't commented on the artwork, and have no issue with its existence. So let's not connect my comments to that.

Secondly, there are many possibilities. Options for enhanced exploration and social challenges and general play, choices in PC abilities as you level, mass combat options, narrative mechanics, shared story responsibility, more granular skill use options, alternatives for things like healing, encumbrance, food, disease & poison, crafting, and even spellcasting subsystems. Expanding equipment lists and adding culture to the species/background/class axis. Bringing back the warlord (or something like it), as well as other potential classes like the swordmage.

All of these things either existed in a previous version of the official game, or in a D&D-inspired game or 3pp (often for 5e), and any of it could be part of WotC's 5e and pique the interest of segments of the fan base who currently feel underserved.

Ok, they could and I would like to see some of them also, or good recommendations on third parties that do this well in a way that can be cleanly separated from their game and into 5e if that is what I want. But your posts generally never actually bring any of these things up. It is nearly always one or two sentences along the lines of I do not like 5e and I wish Wotc never made it.
If these susbsystems became popular enough there is a very good chance that Wizards would make an official version. Though the question needs to be asked, why is an official verion needed.
I am thinking we could do with a live play version of @SlyFlourish. Someone willing to run a campaign with a mashup of the major 5e variants as included rules in a campaign.

So, in short, perhaps in the future, it may profit you more to tell us (relevant to the thread topic) what it is you want, who is doing something like it, instead of a generic gripe about WoTC 5e.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think this is a little unfair.

The truth is that while some people can do a competent job of both playing and GMing, and get value out of both, some people are just no good at one or the other, or actively dislike one or the other.

Telling people who are no good (or have reason to believe they'd be no good) at GMing, or actively don't want to do so to either do it or suck it up is tantamount to saying they should just get out of the hobby if they don't like D&D.

I did not say I had no sympathy, just that I had less. Is there no place for the middle ground anymore?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Every time I see someone say something like this I wonder if they actually read the early non-core 5e books, like Hoard of the Dragon Queen, Rise of Tiamat, Princes of the Apocalypse, and Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide.

I would say any of those books are just as flawed as anything to come out post-Tasha’s. Pretty much every official campaign-length adventure in 5e can be described as a filled with a lot of cool, disconnected ideas that need a lot of changes to work well at the table. That’s true both before and after Tasha’s. I would choose to run Netherdeep or Witchlight over Tyranny of Dragons or Princes of the Apocalypse any day of the week. I’d recommend pretty much any other official 5e setting book over the SCAG, except probably Strixhaven.

I dunno, maybe you feel different, but in my experience in discussions like these anyone that says “D&D 5e after Tasha’s is clearly worse than it was before Tasha’s” either isn’t actually familiar with most 5e books, is viewing early 5e books with nostalgia glasses, or is saying that in place of what they actually mean (they don’t like the Tasha’s rule updates, overall shortening of lore, the new inclusion policies or something like that).

Besides the new core rulebooks, I’m pretty sure the last 5e book I bought was Fizban’s, so maybe the quality nose dived with Planescape, Book of Many Things, and Bigby’s, based on my experience with 5e books, I just straight up do not agree with this simplistic assessment of the trajectory of quality in official 5e books’. And I think any simple dichotomies like “before Tasha’s good, after Tasha’s bad” are overly simplistic and inherently suspect. Reality is rarely so simple and people that want to reduce the complexities of reality often have an ulterior motive.

And yet I ran Princes out of the book much to the satisfaction of the players. Not 100%, mind you but close enough, it depends on the group and what their expectations are. It is still very popular.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This particular rift in the D&D community goes back to the Diversity and Dungeons and Dragons announcement in June of 2020, where WotC announced they were going to change D&D to be more inclusive and announced the optional rules for Tasha’s. A small but loud group of grumblers have dedicated over 5 years(!) to threadcrapping any discussion about any new D&D product since then.

There were, of course, discussions about diversity in D&D, problematic aspects of the game, the quality of 5e books/mechanics, and other similar topics before then, but that announcement is when this problem really kicked off.

I have to point out at least Micah's issues with current D&D have nothing much to do with diversity in it. I understand why people can get tired of his incessant grumbling about it, but I think its at least fair to not include him with certain--other elements--in the hobby when they're coming from very different directions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I did not say I had no sympathy, just that I had less. Is there no place for the middle ground anymore?

And I said it was "a little" unfair.

 

[Autumnal]

I did not say I had no sympathy, just that I had less. Is there no place for the middle ground anymore?

No. Plate tectonics took it away.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

And I said it was "a little" unfair.

ok, fair enough.

 

[AlViking]

Not strictly true. RAW sone parts of 5.0 are allowed and it was sold as backwards compatible.

It kinda is if you squint/results may vary.

Anything is allowed if the DM okays it. The official guidance is that if it's been replaced, use the new stuff. Which I do for classes and items, not so much for other rules like stealth.

 

[AlViking]

First if all, I haven't commented on the artwork, and have no issue with its existence. So let's not connect my comments to that.

Secondly, there are many possibilities. Options for enhanced exploration and social challenges and general play, choices in PC abilities as you level, mass combat options, narrative mechanics, shared story responsibility, more granular skill use options, alternatives for things like healing, encumbrance, food, disease & poison, crafting, and even spellcasting subsystems. Expanding equipment lists and adding culture to the species/background/class axis. Bringing back the warlord (or something like it), as well as other potential classes like the swordmage.

All of these things either existed in a previous version of the official game, or in a D&D-inspired game or 3pp (often for 5e), and any of it could be part of WotC's 5e and pique the interest of segments of the fan base who currently feel underserved.

Seems like the things you ask for are things that third parties are easily able to step in and provide if there's enough demand. That seems to be part of WOTC's strategy and I don't see why it's an issue. Would it be better to go back to TSR days (joke acronym was They Sue Regularly) that tried to stop everyone else from publishing everything D&D related while they went bankrupt in large part because they flooded the market?

 

[AlViking]

It's pretty amazing that 5e was the best selling edition, let alone RPG, when it only has four years of good books. And in that era theme is still Tome of Foes and the Waterdeep modules.

But haven't you heard? Popularity is not the same as good, even if the people buying it apparently think it's good along with something, something Stranger Things and CR (ignoring that D&D has had representation here and there on all sorts of shows for decades). To a certain extent is true that "good" is in the eyes of the beholder but a lot of people seem to think everyone else who enjoys and purchases products simply don't understand that they're buying a substandard product.