I don't think it's a poor substitute at all. Remember - per Crawford the majority of tables don't even use feats, never mind thinking the number of feats they do get might be too few. So having the baseline guaranteed feat progression feel sparse to experienced players like us, who would be much more comfortable choosing to hand out extra feats and run higher-powered campaigns, is the better way to go.
The one thing I truly wanted is what we're getting - a feat at 1st level (that is actually tuned to be acceptable at 1st level, e.g. not a half-ASI-feat.)
I don't think it's a poor substitute at all. Remember - per Crawford the majority of tables don't even use feats, never mind thinking the number of feats they do get might be too few. So having the baseline guaranteed feat progression feel sparse to experienced players like us, who would be much more comfortable choosing to hand out extra feats and run higher-powered campaigns, is the better way to go.
The one thing I truly wanted is what we're getting - a feat at 1st level (that is actually tuned to be acceptable at 1st level, e.g. not a half-ASI-feat.)
This kind of proves my point - if you make something an optional rule, people are not going to opt into it. If the majority of DMs in fact do not use the optional rule of feats, and thus subject their players to the horrifically bad game design that is 5e’s almost non-existent progression, that is a sign you need to make the feat system better and incorporated into the actual game.
And, if you are designing a game that now incorporates feats as a baseline during character creation, you should come up with a more clear way to interact with that system than “here’s an impossibly confusing choice for new players” or “here, leave it up to your DM”, which are the two options we have now.
The fact a majority of players might tolerate bad game design is not a reason to keep your game poorly designed.
I think the balance is with new DMs. before you had to hope you found that diamond in the rough natural DM, or someone who had played and was willing to take that risk. I think they are trying to help new dms not feel pressured to play the more difficult more complicated game and get burned form doing it later.
I don't think it's a poor substitute at all. Remember - per Crawford the majority of tables don't even use feats, never mind thinking the number of feats they do get might be too few. So having the baseline guaranteed feat progression feel sparse to experienced players like us, who would be much more comfortable choosing to hand out extra feats and run higher-powered campaigns, is the better way to go.
The one thing I truly wanted is what we're getting - a feat at 1st level (that is actually tuned to be acceptable at 1st level, e.g. not a half-ASI-feat.)
This kind of proves my point - if you make something an optional rule, people are not going to opt into it. If the majority of DMs in fact do not use the optional rule of feats, and thus subject their players to the horrifically bad game design that is 5e’s almost non-existent progression, that is a sign you need to make the feat system better and incorporated into the actual game.
And, if you are designing a game that now incorporates feats as a baseline during character creation, you should come up with a more clear way to interact with that system than “here’s an impossibly confusing choice for new players” or “here, leave it up to your DM”, which are the two options we have now.
The fact a majority of players might tolerate bad game design is not a reason to keep your game poorly designed.
5e's progression being "bad game design" is quite a stretch considering it's both brought in and retained more players than any before it. Feats being optional and more spaced out seems to have resonated with a huge number of old and new fans alike.
The 1st-level feat choice being "impossible" comes off as a silly/overblown judgment too. If you're new to the game or to this whole feats thing, just pick Tough or Skilled, done; I have little doubt the PHB will include language to that very effect.
I think it's too easy for veterans like ourselves to forget how daunting this D&D thing, hell, this TTRPG thing can be for people who have never tried it before. Keeping the baseline low and accessible without sacrificing too much depth is a good thing for everyone.
I don't think it's a poor substitute at all. Remember - per Crawford the majority of tables don't even use feats, never mind thinking the number of feats they do get might be too few. So having the baseline guaranteed feat progression feel sparse to experienced players like us, who would be much more comfortable choosing to hand out extra feats and run higher-powered campaigns, is the better way to go.
The one thing I truly wanted is what we're getting - a feat at 1st level (that is actually tuned to be acceptable at 1st level, e.g. not a half-ASI-feat.)
This kind of proves my point - if you make something an optional rule, people are not going to opt into it. If the majority of DMs in fact do not use the optional rule of feats, and thus subject their players to the horrifically bad game design that is 5e’s almost non-existent progression, that is a sign you need to make the feat system better and incorporated into the actual game.
And, if you are designing a game that now incorporates feats as a baseline during character creation, you should come up with a more clear way to interact with that system than “here’s an impossibly confusing choice for new players” or “here, leave it up to your DM”, which are the two options we have now.
The fact a majority of players might tolerate bad game design is not a reason to keep your game poorly designed.
5e's progression being "bad game design" is quite a stretch considering it's both brought in and retained more players than any before it. Feats being optional and more spaced out seems to have resonated with a huge number of old and new fans alike.
The 1st-level feat choice being "impossible" comes off as a silly/overblown judgment too. If you're new to the game or to this whole feats thing, just pick Tough or Skilled, done; I have little doubt the PHB will include language to that very effect.
I think it's too easy for veterans like ourselves to forget how daunting this D&D thing, hell, this TTRPG thing can be for people who have never tried it before. Keeping the baseline low and accessible without sacrificing too much depth is a good thing for everyone.
Honestly, I think "veteran" players tend to be kind of full of themselves and overestimate the game's complexity while underestimating the ability of new players. Having introduced a whole bunch of new-to-RPG players to various editions of D&D, including ones far more complex than 5e, I have never once seen any new player overwhelmed by complexity (provided the DM is willing to help them and the table is understanding). You'll have to pardon me for actually having faith in my new players--faith which has consistently been accurate.
Fortunately, it would seem Wizards agrees with me that 5e is too simple, as a major component of the 2024 rules update consists of adding complexity and a dynamic element to the fairly stagnate base 5e rules.
Honestly, I think "veteran" players tend to be kind of full of themselves and overestimate the game's complexity while underestimating the ability of new players. Having introduced a whole bunch of new-to-RPG players to various editions of D&D, including ones far more complex than 5e, I have never once seen any new player overwhelmed by complexity (provided the DM is willing to help them and the table is understanding). You'll have to pardon me for actually having faith in my new players--faith which has consistently been accurate.
Uh... you're the one who called 1st-level feats an "impossibly confusing choice," not me. Your faith in new players appears somewhat inconsistent 🤨
Fortunately, it would seem Wizards agrees with me that 5e is too simple, as a major component of the 2024 rules update consists of adding complexity and a dynamic element to the fairly stagnate base 5e rules.
Right, and they're keeping feats at every 4th level, with more than that being an optional reward structure. So I guess we agree that's fine then?
Honestly, I think "veteran" players tend to be kind of full of themselves and overestimate the game's complexity while underestimating the ability of new players.
It's not really about new players. I know people who have been playing for years and still have to be reminded 'by the way, you have extra attack'. While 5e is fairly simple by D&D standards, it's still a game with a 256 page rulebook; most (though not all) published non-D&D games are simpler.
5e's progression being "bad game design" is quite a stretch considering it's both brought in and retained more players than any before it.
I don't want to send this off on a tangent, but "5e is more commercially successful" doesn't necessarily imply that it's even a good game (I'd disagree with the statement that it's not good, but you can't prove that conclusion from the fact that lots of people are playing it), let alone that every aspect of it must be really good (and there are a lot of aspects that could be improved on in 5e, and how it handles feats is something I really think it could handle better).
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
5e's progression being "bad game design" is quite a stretch considering it's both brought in and retained more players than any before it.
I don't want to send this off on a tangent, but "5e is more commercially successful" doesn't necessarily imply that it's even a good game (I'd disagree with the statement that it's not good, but you can't prove that conclusion from the fact that lots of people are playing it), let alone that every aspect of it must be really good (and there are a lot of aspects that could be improved on in 5e, and how it handles feats is something I really think it could handle better).
I didn't actually say that it was a good game (though I do think it is.) I'm saying that given its design goal of returning lapsed players and attracting new ones, it succeeded.
5e's progression being "bad game design" is quite a stretch considering it's both brought in and retained more players than any before it.
I don't want to send this off on a tangent, but "5e is more commercially successful" doesn't necessarily imply that it's even a good game (I'd disagree with the statement that it's not good, but you can't prove that conclusion from the fact that lots of people are playing it), let alone that every aspect of it must be really good (and there are a lot of aspects that could be improved on in 5e, and how it handles feats is something I really think it could handle better).
I didn't actually say that it was a good game (though I do think it is.) I'm saying that given its design goal of returning lapsed players and attracting new ones, it succeeded.
That was a claim that would be more directly deductable from the evidence presented. The point is, it can't really be said that the character progression is responsible for how popular 5e is, which is what you implied. There are a ton of factors involved in why 5e was so successful, and the quality of character progression mechanics is not something I'd place even in the top 3 factors in that. There's plenty of room for it to be quite bad and still have the game be successful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The point is, it can't really be said that the character progression is responsible for how popular 5e is, which is what you implied.
So what evidence is there for the progression being bad design then? Clearly it didn't get in the way.
Lots. I could go into a lot of explanation about how 5e’s progression system creates more of an illusion of choice than actual meaningful choice. Or how new players are unnecessarily confused and overwhelmed by the arbitrary “choose a feat or choose ASI, but not both” choice. Or the fact that the very limited availability of feats means the majority of them are dead content—with many being dead content the very day they are released.
But there is an even more obvious piece of evidence. Wizards, who collects a lot of data, has effectively said that it was a mistake in game design. That is why they keep providing optional rules to improve e progression and increase the choices players have. That is why they are expanding feats to try and provide more options. Wizards knows and has all but admitted their feat system, and progression system generally, is bad. Whether they actually fix that system, however, remains to be seen.
I am not optimistic - they prioritized backwards compatibility and appeasing the vocal minority in their playtesting, and fixing something as fundamental as progression would frustrate both those ends.
Edit: I want to be clear, 5e has become my favorite edition of D&D, and I think, overall, it is a great game. But just because something is great overall does not mean it cannot be made better by fixing underperforming aspects.
Lots. I could go into a lot of explanation about how 5e’s progression system creates more of an illusion of choice than actual meaningful choice. Or how new players are unnecessarily confused and overwhelmed by the arbitrary “choose a feat or choose ASI, but not both” choice. Or the fact that the very limited availability of feats means the majority of them are dead content—with many being dead content the very day they are released.
But there is an even more obvious piece of evidence. Wizards, who collects a lot of data, has effectively said that it was a mistake in game design. That is why they keep providing optional rules to improve e progression and increase the choices players have. That is why they are expanding feats to try and provide more options. Wizards knows and has all but admitted their feat system, and progression system generally, is bad. Whether they actually fix that system, however, remains to be seen.
I am not optimistic - they prioritized backwards compatibility and appeasing the vocal minority in their playtesting, and fixing something as fundamental as progression would frustrate both those ends.
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Printing more feats is not a change to the game's progression; you still get the same number of them baseline at the exact same points as before, i.e. an ASI every 4th level until you go from 16th-19th. They have never claimed they saw anything wrong with this baseline progression either. The one thing they were even remotely interested in looking at was adding a single Epic Boon as a capstone, and even that comes at the end of the character's progression, for campaigns that even make it that far.
All the rest of this is just opinion. Which you're entitled to, obviously, but it isn't "evidence" of anything save your own personal preferences/playstyle.
The point is, it can't really be said that the character progression is responsible for how popular 5e is, which is what you implied.
So what evidence is there for the progression being bad design then? Clearly it didn't get in the way.
My point was that you can't say it didn't get in the way. You can say that it didn't hobble the game's popularity*, but you can't claim that it was the reason for game's success. You've been here basically as long as I have, and likely to have seen those same discussions talking about why 5e is so popular and all recycle the same half dozen reasons - none of which centre on the character progression. There's a reason for that - it's not anywhere near the largest factor in its success.
* and that's objectively true, and no one here is saying that the game is bad, most of us have sunk more hours into it than we care to admit and enjoy it enough to be going online and discussing it's merits with strangers almost as a hobby in itself.
Now, what are you actually asking? I can explain why it's bad game design. I can do that in the same way I can explain why the fact that on mobile, if you hit report post by accident, you can't get back to the thread without refreshing the page is bad site design (and yes, that's something that's just screwed me over and so is fresh in my memory!). With a couple of basic axioms (like, that it's bad to make it easy to wipe your work without intent), it can be shown that it's not a good design.
If you're asking me to go out and find examples of other people saying its bad (which is what data collection effectively would be), then I'm not going to do that. Even if it's there, if I brought it back, it would just be dismissed as their opinion. That's unproductive.
If on the other hand you want to understand more of what we're saying, I can go into a deep dive on it. CG referenced the problems without explaining much about the rationale, but I could go deeper, explaining why they're fundamental problems rather than mere "taste". However, that's a lot of time and effort to do - again, not something I'm willing to do if this is just about defending/attacking 5e, but I'm willing to do it if you want to understand more of what's being said.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If you're asking me to go out and find examples of other people saying its bad (which is what data collection effectively would be), then I'm not going to do that. Even if it's there, if I brought it back, it would just be dismissed as their opinion. That's unproductive.
Because it is opinion. And having an opinion is perfectly fine, but I'm not the one trying to make some kind of objective claim about the game's design being "horrifically bad" (presented as fact) or having "non-existent progression" (which is just a false statement.)
"I don't like 5e's progression" is a perfectly valid statement. "5e's progression is non-existent" requires a definition of "progression" that I don't think most people playing or designing this game would agree with. And what got us onto this tangent in the first place was "5e doesn't have enough feats" - which, on top of being opinion itself, has the intended solution for experienced tables built right into core.
I am not optimistic - they prioritized backwards compatibility and appeasing the vocal minority in their playtesting, and fixing something as fundamental as progression would frustrate both those ends.
To me, you really hit the nail on the head with this observation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
If you're asking me to go out and find examples of other people saying its bad (which is what data collection effectively would be), then I'm not going to do that. Even if it's there, if I brought it back, it would just be dismissed as their opinion. That's unproductive.
Because it is opinion. And having an opinion is perfectly fine, but I'm not the one trying to make some kind of objective claim about the game's design being "horrifically bad" (presented as fact) or having "non-existent progression" (which is just a false statement.)
No, you're making claims that it's good and responsible for 5e's popularity - that 5e wouldn't be successful if it were bad.
"I don't like 5e's progression" is a perfectly valid statement. "5e's progression is non-existent" requires a definition of "progression" that I don't think most people playing or designing this game would agree with. And what got us onto this tangent in the first place was "5e doesn't have enough feats" - which, on top of being opinion itself, has the intended solution for experienced tables built right into core.
Well, given that nobody said it didn't exist, at least not on this page or quoted it, that's an odd rant. CG did make a hyperbolic statement saying that it was almost non-existent - that's something I disagree with actually, there's not a lack of progression, quite the opposite, it's just that the mechanism 5e uses is bad and very front-loaded on agency - but that's not the same as saying it doesn't exist, especially as CG repeatedly talked about the progression in 5e non-ironically.
We haven't even discussed what the problems with 5e's progression even are, so dismissing them as opinion is...odd. as I said, with the acceptance of one basic axiom, they're pretty objective and not subjective - to insist otherwise is tantamount to solipsism. It also rejects the need for any criticism, which results in stagnancy.
5e has several problems. It's a good game, but there are several problems in rooted in its skeleton, and part of that is why many campaigns run out of steam so early. They're trying to address at least some of them in 2024e. They've already started to divorce feats from ASIs, which is a positive step, but only a small one. I doubt 2024e will continue that to an meaningful end - but they've also recognised one of the symptoms, that high level play becomes stale, and are attempting to remedy at least that. We'll see if they conclude that the problem is more fundamental when it comes to 6e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
5e has several problems. It's a good game, but there are several problems in rooted in its skeleton, and part of that is why many campaigns run out of steam so early. They're trying to address at least some of them in 2024e. They've already started to divorce feats from ASIs, which is a positive step, but only a small one. I doubt 2024e will continue that to an meaningful end - but they've also recognised one of the symptoms, that high level play becomes stale, and are attempting to remedy at least that. We'll see if they conclude that the problem is more fundamental when it comes to 6e.
Honestly, every edition has had serious problems at higher levels, and it's probably not fixable without a 4e level fix that people would reject, because the core issue is that there are a lot of extremely disruptive spells in the game, and while a DM can deal with any one disruptive spell, the list eventually becomes unmanageable.
Well, given that nobody said it didn't exist, at least not on this page or quoted it, that's an odd rant. CG did make a hyperbolic statement saying that it was almost non-existent - that's something I disagree with actually, there's not a lack of progression, quite the opposite, it's just that the mechanism 5e uses is bad and very front-loaded on agency - but that's not the same as saying it doesn't exist, especially as CG repeatedly talked about the progression in 5e non-ironically.
It's neither "ranting" nor "odd" to reject hyperbole, especially hyperbole cloaked/presented as fact.
We haven't even discussed what the problems with 5e's progression even are, so dismissing them as opinion is...odd. as I said, with the acceptance of one basic axiom, they're pretty objective and not subjective - to insist otherwise is tantamount to solipsism. It also rejects the need for any criticism, which results in stagnancy.
5e has several problems. It's a good game, but there are several problems in rooted in its skeleton, and part of that is why many campaigns run out of steam so early. They're trying to address at least some of them in 2024e. They've already started to divorce feats from ASIs, which is a positive step, but only a small one. I doubt 2024e will continue that to an meaningful end - but they've also recognised one of the symptoms, that high level play becomes stale, and are attempting to remedy at least that. We'll see if they conclude that the problem is more fundamental when it comes to 6e.
I'm totally fine with discussing the problems - but neither "non-existent progression" nor "almost non-existent progression" (a hair-splitting distinction) is a problem worth discussing, because it's factually inaccurate either way. And I'm not the one rushing to the defense of hyperbolic statements.
What could be worthwhile to discuss is where the balance should fall between accessibility for new players and depth for veterans. By adding mandatory 1st-level feats, they've tipped the scales ever so slightly towards the latter - but they did so in a way that functionally has little bearing on overall progression, because the ASIs are still the same place they always were.
Well, given that nobody said it didn't exist, at least not on this page or quoted it, that's an odd rant. CG did make a hyperbolic statement saying that it was almost non-existent - that's something I disagree with actually, there's not a lack of progression, quite the opposite, it's just that the mechanism 5e uses is bad and very front-loaded on agency - but that's not the same as saying it doesn't exist, especially as CG repeatedly talked about the progression in 5e non-ironically.
It's neither "ranting" nor "odd" to reject hyperbole, especially hyperbole cloaked/presented as fact.
We haven't even discussed what the problems with 5e's progression even are, so dismissing them as opinion is...odd. as I said, with the acceptance of one basic axiom, they're pretty objective and not subjective - to insist otherwise is tantamount to solipsism. It also rejects the need for any criticism, which results in stagnancy.
5e has several problems. It's a good game, but there are several problems in rooted in its skeleton, and part of that is why many campaigns run out of steam so early. They're trying to address at least some of them in 2024e. They've already started to divorce feats from ASIs, which is a positive step, but only a small one. I doubt 2024e will continue that to an meaningful end - but they've also recognised one of the symptoms, that high level play becomes stale, and are attempting to remedy at least that. We'll see if they conclude that the problem is more fundamental when it comes to 6e.
I'm totally fine with discussing the problems - but neither "non-existent progression" nor "almost non-existent progression" (a hair-splitting distinction) is a problem worth discussing, because it's factually inaccurate either way. And I'm not the one rushing to the defense of hyperbolic statements.
No one is is rushing to defend a hyperbolic claim. I criticised a bad claim made by you - that 5e was successful, and therefore that meant that the progression system must be good - and you complained about a one-off hyperbolic comment that CG made that wasn't a response to what I said at all. I even divorced myself from that comment, not that I had any association with it at all. Hence the description of it as a rant.
What could be worthwhile to discuss is where the balance should fall between accessibility for new players and depth for veterans. By adding mandatory 1st-level feats, they've tipped the scales ever so slightly towards the latter - but they did so in a way that functionally has little bearing on overall progression, because the ASIs are still the same place they always were.
Sure, which is why I said it was a positive step but not a solution or end goal. They've slightly divorced ASIs and feats, which allows for feats to be chosen for flavour rather than purely in competition with ASIs (which often isn't really a choice at all). Unfortunately, that competition still exists later on, which is problematic and why I want a complete divorce.
The feat situation has somewhat improved - you can now get a feat without sacrificing something important - but you're correct that the poor progression system, currently (I'll be honest, I haven't really bothered to keep up with the UAs since the Druid nonsense drained my enthusiasm for blow-by-blow monitoring of 2024e), hasn't improved on a meaningful level by it. Not that feats are the only avenue on that, but I've seen little else that they're working on that would.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't think it's a poor substitute at all. Remember - per Crawford the majority of tables don't even use feats, never mind thinking the number of feats they do get might be too few. So having the baseline guaranteed feat progression feel sparse to experienced players like us, who would be much more comfortable choosing to hand out extra feats and run higher-powered campaigns, is the better way to go.
The one thing I truly wanted is what we're getting - a feat at 1st level (that is actually tuned to be acceptable at 1st level, e.g. not a half-ASI-feat.)
This kind of proves my point - if you make something an optional rule, people are not going to opt into it. If the majority of DMs in fact do not use the optional rule of feats, and thus subject their players to the horrifically bad game design that is 5e’s almost non-existent progression, that is a sign you need to make the feat system better and incorporated into the actual game.
And, if you are designing a game that now incorporates feats as a baseline during character creation, you should come up with a more clear way to interact with that system than “here’s an impossibly confusing choice for new players” or “here, leave it up to your DM”, which are the two options we have now.
The fact a majority of players might tolerate bad game design is not a reason to keep your game poorly designed.
I think the balance is with new DMs. before you had to hope you found that diamond in the rough natural DM, or someone who had played and was willing to take that risk. I think they are trying to help new dms not feel pressured to play the more difficult more complicated game and get burned form doing it later.
My Brews:
Race: Tropical Dwaves Spells: Summon Spirits Rites of Mummification
Monster: Osprey Feat: Skill Mastery–Animal Handler (Provides DCs for training animals applicable to those with and without this feat)
5e's progression being "bad game design" is quite a stretch considering it's both brought in and retained more players than any before it. Feats being optional and more spaced out seems to have resonated with a huge number of old and new fans alike.
The 1st-level feat choice being "impossible" comes off as a silly/overblown judgment too. If you're new to the game or to this whole feats thing, just pick Tough or Skilled, done; I have little doubt the PHB will include language to that very effect.
I think it's too easy for veterans like ourselves to forget how daunting this D&D thing, hell, this TTRPG thing can be for people who have never tried it before. Keeping the baseline low and accessible without sacrificing too much depth is a good thing for everyone.
Honestly, I think "veteran" players tend to be kind of full of themselves and overestimate the game's complexity while underestimating the ability of new players. Having introduced a whole bunch of new-to-RPG players to various editions of D&D, including ones far more complex than 5e, I have never once seen any new player overwhelmed by complexity (provided the DM is willing to help them and the table is understanding). You'll have to pardon me for actually having faith in my new players--faith which has consistently been accurate.
Fortunately, it would seem Wizards agrees with me that 5e is too simple, as a major component of the 2024 rules update consists of adding complexity and a dynamic element to the fairly stagnate base 5e rules.
Uh... you're the one who called 1st-level feats an "impossibly confusing choice," not me. Your faith in new players appears somewhat inconsistent 🤨
Right, and they're keeping feats at every 4th level, with more than that being an optional reward structure. So I guess we agree that's fine then?
It's not really about new players. I know people who have been playing for years and still have to be reminded 'by the way, you have extra attack'. While 5e is fairly simple by D&D standards, it's still a game with a 256 page rulebook; most (though not all) published non-D&D games are simpler.
I don't want to send this off on a tangent, but "5e is more commercially successful" doesn't necessarily imply that it's even a good game (I'd disagree with the statement that it's not good, but you can't prove that conclusion from the fact that lots of people are playing it), let alone that every aspect of it must be really good (and there are a lot of aspects that could be improved on in 5e, and how it handles feats is something I really think it could handle better).
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I didn't actually say that it was a good game (though I do think it is.) I'm saying that given its design goal of returning lapsed players and attracting new ones, it succeeded.
That was a claim that would be more directly deductable from the evidence presented. The point is, it can't really be said that the character progression is responsible for how popular 5e is, which is what you implied. There are a ton of factors involved in why 5e was so successful, and the quality of character progression mechanics is not something I'd place even in the top 3 factors in that. There's plenty of room for it to be quite bad and still have the game be successful.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
So what evidence is there for the progression being bad design then? Clearly it didn't get in the way.
Lots. I could go into a lot of explanation about how 5e’s progression system creates more of an illusion of choice than actual meaningful choice. Or how new players are unnecessarily confused and overwhelmed by the arbitrary “choose a feat or choose ASI, but not both” choice. Or the fact that the very limited availability of feats means the majority of them are dead content—with many being dead content the very day they are released.
But there is an even more obvious piece of evidence. Wizards, who collects a lot of data, has effectively said that it was a mistake in game design. That is why they keep providing optional rules to improve e progression and increase the choices players have. That is why they are expanding feats to try and provide more options. Wizards knows and has all but admitted their feat system, and progression system generally, is bad. Whether they actually fix that system, however, remains to be seen.
I am not optimistic - they prioritized backwards compatibility and appeasing the vocal minority in their playtesting, and fixing something as fundamental as progression would frustrate both those ends.
Edit: I want to be clear, 5e has become my favorite edition of D&D, and I think, overall, it is a great game. But just because something is great overall does not mean it cannot be made better by fixing underperforming aspects.
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Printing more feats is not a change to the game's progression; you still get the same number of them baseline at the exact same points as before, i.e. an ASI every 4th level until you go from 16th-19th. They have never claimed they saw anything wrong with this baseline progression either. The one thing they were even remotely interested in looking at was adding a single Epic Boon as a capstone, and even that comes at the end of the character's progression, for campaigns that even make it that far.
All the rest of this is just opinion. Which you're entitled to, obviously, but it isn't "evidence" of anything save your own personal preferences/playstyle.
My point was that you can't say it didn't get in the way. You can say that it didn't hobble the game's popularity*, but you can't claim that it was the reason for game's success. You've been here basically as long as I have, and likely to have seen those same discussions talking about why 5e is so popular and all recycle the same half dozen reasons - none of which centre on the character progression. There's a reason for that - it's not anywhere near the largest factor in its success.
* and that's objectively true, and no one here is saying that the game is bad, most of us have sunk more hours into it than we care to admit and enjoy it enough to be going online and discussing it's merits with strangers almost as a hobby in itself.
_____________________________________________________________
Now, what are you actually asking? I can explain why it's bad game design. I can do that in the same way I can explain why the fact that on mobile, if you hit report post by accident, you can't get back to the thread without refreshing the page is bad site design (and yes, that's something that's just screwed me over and so is fresh in my memory!). With a couple of basic axioms (like, that it's bad to make it easy to wipe your work without intent), it can be shown that it's not a good design.
If you're asking me to go out and find examples of other people saying its bad (which is what data collection effectively would be), then I'm not going to do that. Even if it's there, if I brought it back, it would just be dismissed as their opinion. That's unproductive.
If on the other hand you want to understand more of what we're saying, I can go into a deep dive on it. CG referenced the problems without explaining much about the rationale, but I could go deeper, explaining why they're fundamental problems rather than mere "taste". However, that's a lot of time and effort to do - again, not something I'm willing to do if this is just about defending/attacking 5e, but I'm willing to do it if you want to understand more of what's being said.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Because it is opinion. And having an opinion is perfectly fine, but I'm not the one trying to make some kind of objective claim about the game's design being "horrifically bad" (presented as fact) or having "non-existent progression" (which is just a false statement.)
"I don't like 5e's progression" is a perfectly valid statement. "5e's progression is non-existent" requires a definition of "progression" that I don't think most people playing or designing this game would agree with. And what got us onto this tangent in the first place was "5e doesn't have enough feats" - which, on top of being opinion itself, has the intended solution for experienced tables built right into core.
To me, you really hit the nail on the head with this observation.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Well, given that nobody said it didn't exist, at least not on this page or quoted it, that's an odd rant. CG did make a hyperbolic statement saying that it was almost non-existent - that's something I disagree with actually, there's not a lack of progression, quite the opposite, it's just that the mechanism 5e uses is bad and very front-loaded on agency - but that's not the same as saying it doesn't exist, especially as CG repeatedly talked about the progression in 5e non-ironically.
We haven't even discussed what the problems with 5e's progression even are, so dismissing them as opinion is...odd. as I said, with the acceptance of one basic axiom, they're pretty objective and not subjective - to insist otherwise is tantamount to solipsism. It also rejects the need for any criticism, which results in stagnancy.
5e has several problems. It's a good game, but there are several problems in rooted in its skeleton, and part of that is why many campaigns run out of steam so early. They're trying to address at least some of them in 2024e. They've already started to divorce feats from ASIs, which is a positive step, but only a small one. I doubt 2024e will continue that to an meaningful end - but they've also recognised one of the symptoms, that high level play becomes stale, and are attempting to remedy at least that. We'll see if they conclude that the problem is more fundamental when it comes to 6e.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Honestly, every edition has had serious problems at higher levels, and it's probably not fixable without a 4e level fix that people would reject, because the core issue is that there are a lot of extremely disruptive spells in the game, and while a DM can deal with any one disruptive spell, the list eventually becomes unmanageable.
It's neither "ranting" nor "odd" to reject hyperbole, especially hyperbole cloaked/presented as fact.
I'm totally fine with discussing the problems - but neither "non-existent progression" nor "almost non-existent progression" (a hair-splitting distinction) is a problem worth discussing, because it's factually inaccurate either way. And I'm not the one rushing to the defense of hyperbolic statements.
What could be worthwhile to discuss is where the balance should fall between accessibility for new players and depth for veterans. By adding mandatory 1st-level feats, they've tipped the scales ever so slightly towards the latter - but they did so in a way that functionally has little bearing on overall progression, because the ASIs are still the same place they always were.
No one is is rushing to defend a hyperbolic claim. I criticised a bad claim made by you - that 5e was successful, and therefore that meant that the progression system must be good - and you complained about a one-off hyperbolic comment that CG made that wasn't a response to what I said at all. I even divorced myself from that comment, not that I had any association with it at all. Hence the description of it as a rant.
Sure, which is why I said it was a positive step but not a solution or end goal. They've slightly divorced ASIs and feats, which allows for feats to be chosen for flavour rather than purely in competition with ASIs (which often isn't really a choice at all). Unfortunately, that competition still exists later on, which is problematic and why I want a complete divorce.
The feat situation has somewhat improved - you can now get a feat without sacrificing something important - but you're correct that the poor progression system, currently (I'll be honest, I haven't really bothered to keep up with the UAs since the Druid nonsense drained my enthusiasm for blow-by-blow monitoring of 2024e), hasn't improved on a meaningful level by it. Not that feats are the only avenue on that, but I've seen little else that they're working on that would.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.