This proverbial “car-boat” we call 5e is currently the most popular Table Top game on the planet. How does that jive with your theory?
For real!
It is a strange discussion when it comes to 5e. A system designed very specifically to allow players to have many options, with the intent to have some level of system mastery and optimization and then to claim that "optimization is bad" and the game is about role-playing.
Why can't it be both? How does one detract from the other? I do get it, some DM's and players don't like optimization but the only way to not have that is to use a different system, one where optimization doesn't exist. You can't say "let's play 5e" then tell players, ignore what the system does and make unoptimized characters because of "role-playing". Its a pretty ridiculous expectation and I suspect one that is largely theorized by people that don't actually play D&D and their participation in the hobby is just that.. theory crafting about what D&D should be.
Anyone who actually plays the game understands that if you use 3e, 4e or 5e, your players are going to optimize their characters, they are supposed to, the game is designed for it, its not a bad thing, its part of the game and has no impact on role-playing at all.
Isn't the game less like a "car-boat" and more like having a car that you race on the weekend, and do tune-up mechanical work on in your spare time during the week if you're into that kind of thing? Both activities can be done separately, but they're both relevant to how well you race.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
This proverbial “car-boat” we call 5e is currently the most popular Table Top game on the planet. How does that jive with your theory?
For real!
It is a strange discussion when it comes to 5e. A system designed very specifically to allow players to have many options, with the intent to have some level of system mastery and optimization and then to claim that "optimization is bad" and the game is about role-playing.
Why can't it be both? How does one detract from the other? I do get it, some DM's and players don't like optimization but the only way to not have that is to use a different system, one where optimization doesn't exist. You can't say "let's play 5e" then tell players, ignore what the system does and make unoptimized characters because of "role-playing". Its a pretty ridiculous expectation and I suspect one that is largely theorized by people that don't actually play D&D and their participation in the hobby is just that.. theory crafting about what D&D should be.
Anyone who actually plays the game understands that if you use 3e, 4e or 5e, your players are going to optimize their characters, they are supposed to, the game is designed for it, its not a bad thing, its part of the game and has no impact on role-playing at all.
I'm happy with the level of granular optimization that exists in the game right now. I do think it's close to too much. The optional class features are the thing putting it juuuuuust about there. It's why I'm worried about these feat trees they're talking about lately. And that's basically why, right there. It can become a real drag!
I'm someone who will optimize. I'll spend the time outside of the game, figuring out the progression path I want, and crunching numbers. I'll regret following a narrative if it means compromising my build, and I'll regret following my build if it means compromising a narrative. There's no winning with me.
I won't feel good if I'm outperforming someone else due to my build, and I will feel resentful if someone's outperforming me because of theirs. And I've seen people try to backseat build other people's characters to be more optimal, and that sucks too.
A certain amount of customization is vital, to make players feel connected to their characters. I think it's in a good spot where it is. Everyone I play with seems to enjoy their characters, and these optimization problems I described are kept to a minimum. If a book comes along that changes this, I hope it's a new edition, because otherwise it effectively enters the meta for me. I can choose not to use it, but then I'm choosing to nerf myself, and that sucks. Psychology is weird.
I do feel that the primary customer of the game should be the noob and that there should be the least amount of room to be mechanically “good at D&D.” And if you ask, I’m an old grognard who has probably been playing the game longer than _most_ of you have been alive.
I do feel that the primary customer of the game should be the noob and that there should be the least amount of room to be mechanically “good at D&D.” And if you ask, I’m an old grognard who has probably been playing the game longer than _most_ of you have been alive.
And that is precisely the target consumer Hasbro is going after. They are rounding off all the sharp edges, dumbing down the game. I read a Tweet from the lead designer who said it was "awesome" that some person's 5 year old was DM'ing, not playing, D&D. Hasbro's main target consumer has always been children, or at least their parents' wallet.
That is where 6e is going to be.
"Dumbing down the game"? Or, are they streamlining the game?
Adding complexity to a system is easy. Any amateur can do that. It takes skill to make something simple.
The five-year-old obviously was copying her parents and didn't know the system.
"Dumbing down the game"? Or, are they streamlining the game?
Adding complexity to a system is easy. Any amateur can do that. It takes skill to make something simple.
It takes skill to make something simple without losing any important functionality. Making something simple by just eliminating functionality isn't hard. The question is which parts of the system actually represent important functions, and the reality is that people don't agree on what's important.
I absolutely don't want to alienate the newer players from DnD because it is too complicated, but I DO want more meaningful character creation past third level. The system is literally designed to be limiting so it is easy to learn, and I don't feel that I can do many of my character ideas justice with the limited flavour from a single subclass. Not to mention that any character built with a single subclass in mind is often tropey.
I think a good way to make everyone happy is to have a really good 'core' system which is super streamlined and easy to understand, but have optional extra character creation rules which allow greater customization. Think pregen classes versus build-your-own classes. I would even put the character options in a fourth core rulebook instead of the PhB. I also think that the rules should be backwards compatible so that tables don't have to decide what rules they are using and instead just have each player choose which system they wanna use.
Contrary to popular belief, I actually think this would REDUCE powergaming in some aspects, as it gives players another option to feel fulfilled with their character each level instead of them trying to 'break' the very limited game, however I also fully acknowledge the fact that more complicated rules would make the game easier to break.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
And yes, streamlining = dumbing down. Less rules make it palatable to a more casual, less sophisticated consumer base, which Hasbo thinks means more sales.
I mean the sales have boomed with 5e, so you also cant say they are wrong...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
And yes, streamlining = dumbing down. Less rules make it palatable to a more casual, less sophisticated consumer base, which Hasbo thinks means more sales.
I mean the sales have boomed with 5e, so you also cant say they are wrong...
And they will double down on that with 6e. Expect the game to extend more into the setting where the chars are cartoon-like in their abilities.
IDK man, WotC has been listening to the community a lot more recently....
I am a relentless optimist though so maybe I am just looking too much on the bright side.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
And yes, streamlining = dumbing down. Less rules make it palatable to a more casual, less sophisticated consumer base, which Hasbo thinks means more sales.
I mean the sales have boomed with 5e, so you also cant say they are wrong...
And they will double down on that with 6e. Expect the game to extend more into the setting where the chars are cartoon-like in their abilities.
What does 'cartoon-like' mean? The only notable streamlining I've seen them do over the process of 5e (i.e. after the edition was created) is the realization that giving monsters a list of a dozen spells is annoying.
I am not going to link anything from reddit here, but go on there and look up "redwyrmofficial", then get back to me. Now, this kid must be some kind of savant, given the language the his dad attributes to the kid, but if you scroll through, you will find the post from the WOTC lead designer thrilled with this.
Further, who do you think Witchlight and Strixhaven are geared for? In one, we have a fair and a module with no violence. In the other, we have 30 pages dedicated to a fashion show, and the rivalries between the participants in the fashion show, plus rolls on cleaning an espresso machine.
And yes, streamlining = dumbing down. Less rules make it palatable to a more casual, less sophisticated consumer base, which Hasbo thinks means more sales.
Funny, because I think needing a crutch in order to be able to role play your character is dumbing it down.
The grognard in me wants to point out that back when I started playing the game, we didn't have or need all this bloat. We could role play quite well using our little, soft, blue dice and our weapon and nonweapon proficiencies.
Then, you youngsters came along and added so much bloat that, instead of cramming three books into our backpacks and running off to meet our friends, I saw some of you needing a dolly to carry all of your books.
Well, guess what? You are a grognard now. Third edition is dusty on its bottom shelf at the local gaming store. Make way for a new bunch of players.
Further, who do you think Witchlight and Strixhaven are geared for? In one, we have a fair and a module with no violence. In the other, we have 30 pages dedicated to a fashion show, and the rivalries between the participants in the fashion show, plus rolls on cleaning an espresso machine.
Have you read Witchlight? Because it's not an adventure with "no violence," it's an adventure with no mandatory violence. There are multiple different ways supported in the adventure to approach every single encounter in the book. If anything, that's the opposite of "dumbing down" D&D. Having to add different possible outcomes to every encounter in an adventure based on how the players choose to approach it (hostilely or diplomatically) makes the books more complex, not less.
And yes, streamlining = dumbing down. Less rules make it palatable to a more casual, less sophisticated consumer base, which Hasbo thinks means more sales.
There is such a thing as "too complicated" or "complex for the sake of being complex". D&D 5e is filled with these types of rules minutia. An attack with a melee weapon is a normally type of melee weapon attack, but not always, and not all melee weapon attacks are attacks made with melee weapons. Natural Weapons sometimes count as Unarmed Strikes, except for very specific lineages/class features that don't and instead count as Simple Weapons. Most spells require you to be able to provide Verbal, Somatic, and Material spell components, meaning you're not holding a shield or wielding a weapon in at least one hand, unless you happen to be holding a spellcasting focus (every spellcasting class can use different items as a focus), which lets you perform Somatic components with the same hand that you're accessing the Material components with . . . unless the material components of the spell are consumed or have a listed cost in gold.
All of these weird mechanical quirks of the current system could be "dumbed down" in a way that is good. There are parts of the game that should be simplified for the purpose of making the game open to a larger amount of people. There are parts of it that absolutely shouldn't be simplified like this . . . but there also are quite a few notable parts of the hobby that really serve no purpose other than being complicated for the point of being complicated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I am not going to link anything from reddit here, but go on there and look up "redwyrmofficial", then get back to me. Now, this kid must be some kind of savant, given the language the his dad attributes to the kid, but if you scroll through, you will find the post from the WOTC lead designer thrilled with this.
Further, who do you think Witchlight and Strixhaven are geared for? In one, we have a fair and a module with no violence. In the other, we have 30 pages dedicated to a fashion show, and the rivalries between the participants in the fashion show, plus rolls on cleaning an espresso machine.
And yes, streamlining = dumbing down. Less rules make it palatable to a more casual, less sophisticated consumer base, which Hasbo thinks means more sales.
Funny, because I think needing a crutch in order to be able to role play your character is dumbing it down.
The grognard in me wants to point out that back when I started playing the game, we didn't have or need all this bloat. We could role play quite well using our little, soft, blue dice and our weapon and nonweapon proficiencies.
Then, you youngsters came along and added so much bloat that, instead of cramming three books into our backpacks and running off to meet our friends, I saw some of you needing a dolly to carry all of your books.
Well, guess what? You are a grognard now. Third edition is dusty on its bottom shelf at the local gaming store. Make way for a new bunch of players.
Funny thing is Mr. Grognard, I seem to only need to carry my laptop. You have fun with your three books, let me have fun with my... dolly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The point here is that its good to have a simple, straight to it baseline, a starting design space that is easy to work with, teach and learn, but ultimately as players gain the experience they will want more and more options.
Some people like to call this "bloat", another very silly concept. We hear this all the time how 3e had "power creep" and "bloat" which is nonsense. 3e players handbook is exactly the same today as the day it was released. What options you added to your game were up to you and your group. Optional content, expansion content, ways that we increase complexity should be optional and I see no reason to limit them. BUT... and this is a big but.. we need a base line D&D to start from
Couldn't agree with this more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Hey, I’m one of those “grognards” that started in 2e and between all of the monster compendiums, “complete handbooks” and “player’s option” books it took 2 backpacks to bring everything and half the rules broke the game when used with the other half. The bloat and the optional rules shenanigans started way back when TSR still owned D&D, it’s nothing new.
I do feel that the primary customer of the game should be the noob and that there should be the least amount of room to be mechanically “good at D&D.” And if you ask, I’m an old grognard who has probably been playing the game longer than _most_ of you have been alive.
And that is precisely the target consumer Hasbro is going after. They are rounding off all the sharp edges, dumbing down the game. I read a Tweet from the lead designer who said it was "awesome" that some person's 5 year old was DM'ing, not playing, D&D. Hasbro's main target consumer has always been children, or at least their parents' wallet.
That is where 6e is going to be.
"Dumbing down the game"? Or, are they streamlining the game?
Adding complexity to a system is easy. Any amateur can do that. It takes skill to make something simple.
The five-year-old obviously was copying her parents and didn't know the system.
I am not going to link anything from reddit here, but go on there and look up "redwyrmofficial", then get back to me. Now, this kid must be some kind of savant, given the language the his dad attributes to the kid, but if you scroll through, you will find the post from the WOTC lead designer thrilled with this.
Further, who do you think Witchlight and Strixhaven are geared for? In one, we have a fair and a module with no violence. In the other, we have 30 pages dedicated to a fashion show, and the rivalries between the participants in the fashion show, plus rolls on cleaning an espresso machine.
And yes, streamlining = dumbing down. Less rules make it palatable to a more casual, less sophisticated consumer base, which Hasbo thinks means more sales.
Have you not actually read either? There are child labourers in Witchlight, some literally chained up. It is Grimm themed module and not so lighthearted as you seem to think.
Strixhaven does have a fashion show, but has a lot more than that with an ongoing plot and a big bad behind it.
But if all you get out of them is 'a non-violent fair' and 'a 30 page fashion show,' well, I suggest you re-read them. Or actually read them rather than just skim.
The fact that a fashion show, an espresso machine, and a pet displacer beast for orphans even are put down on paper in a book that is considered "D&D canon" is all I need to know where WOTC is taking the game. (Oh, and we must not forget "THACO, the angry old gatekeeping clown"). Or, in the new book, where there is no such thing as police (Shield Bearers) that have the option of violence, or as the one WOTC guy says, "harm",in the interview. So no harsh words either. Yeah, that is what WOTC envisions as the direction of D&D.
Am I the only one who remembers Dungeonland?
Or
Mines of Madness?
Castle Greyhawk?
My point is that silly (and even fluffy) games have always been a part of DnD.
Thread is for discussing one's most desired change in D&D. Threads meander, but this one is meandering in directions that have already gotten countless threads locked.
The fact that a fashion show, an espresso machine, and a pet displacer beast for orphans even are put down on paper in a book that is considered "D&D canon" is all I need to know where WOTC is taking the game.
Stupid puns have been a part of the game since before WotC existed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would add more classes to be able to play. The developers focus too much on making campaigns. I mostly want the summoner from Pathfinder 1e.
It pronounced Den Sake. It is not Japanese.
Website character sheet not working fix (Hopefully)
Semi-Expert at homebrew, just ask for my help.
How does one clash with the other?
Have you ever heard of the Paradox of Choice?
Isn't the game less like a "car-boat" and more like having a car that you race on the weekend, and do tune-up mechanical work on in your spare time during the week if you're into that kind of thing? Both activities can be done separately, but they're both relevant to how well you race.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
I'm happy with the level of granular optimization that exists in the game right now. I do think it's close to too much. The optional class features are the thing putting it juuuuuust about there. It's why I'm worried about these feat trees they're talking about lately. And that's basically why, right there. It can become a real drag!
I'm someone who will optimize. I'll spend the time outside of the game, figuring out the progression path I want, and crunching numbers. I'll regret following a narrative if it means compromising my build, and I'll regret following my build if it means compromising a narrative. There's no winning with me.
I won't feel good if I'm outperforming someone else due to my build, and I will feel resentful if someone's outperforming me because of theirs. And I've seen people try to backseat build other people's characters to be more optimal, and that sucks too.
A certain amount of customization is vital, to make players feel connected to their characters. I think it's in a good spot where it is. Everyone I play with seems to enjoy their characters, and these optimization problems I described are kept to a minimum. If a book comes along that changes this, I hope it's a new edition, because otherwise it effectively enters the meta for me. I can choose not to use it, but then I'm choosing to nerf myself, and that sucks. Psychology is weird.
I do feel that the primary customer of the game should be the noob and that there should be the least amount of room to be mechanically “good at D&D.” And if you ask, I’m an old grognard who has probably been playing the game longer than _most_ of you have been alive.
"Dumbing down the game"? Or, are they streamlining the game?
Adding complexity to a system is easy. Any amateur can do that. It takes skill to make something simple.
The five-year-old obviously was copying her parents and didn't know the system.
It takes skill to make something simple without losing any important functionality. Making something simple by just eliminating functionality isn't hard. The question is which parts of the system actually represent important functions, and the reality is that people don't agree on what's important.
I absolutely don't want to alienate the newer players from DnD because it is too complicated, but I DO want more meaningful character creation past third level. The system is literally designed to be limiting so it is easy to learn, and I don't feel that I can do many of my character ideas justice with the limited flavour from a single subclass. Not to mention that any character built with a single subclass in mind is often tropey.
I think a good way to make everyone happy is to have a really good 'core' system which is super streamlined and easy to understand, but have optional extra character creation rules which allow greater customization. Think pregen classes versus build-your-own classes. I would even put the character options in a fourth core rulebook instead of the PhB. I also think that the rules should be backwards compatible so that tables don't have to decide what rules they are using and instead just have each player choose which system they wanna use.
Contrary to popular belief, I actually think this would REDUCE powergaming in some aspects, as it gives players another option to feel fulfilled with their character each level instead of them trying to 'break' the very limited game, however I also fully acknowledge the fact that more complicated rules would make the game easier to break.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I mean the sales have boomed with 5e, so you also cant say they are wrong...
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
IDK man, WotC has been listening to the community a lot more recently....
I am a relentless optimist though so maybe I am just looking too much on the bright side.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
What does 'cartoon-like' mean? The only notable streamlining I've seen them do over the process of 5e (i.e. after the edition was created) is the realization that giving monsters a list of a dozen spells is annoying.
Funny, because I think needing a crutch in order to be able to role play your character is dumbing it down.
The grognard in me wants to point out that back when I started playing the game, we didn't have or need all this bloat. We could role play quite well using our little, soft, blue dice and our weapon and nonweapon proficiencies.
Then, you youngsters came along and added so much bloat that, instead of cramming three books into our backpacks and running off to meet our friends, I saw some of you needing a dolly to carry all of your books.
Well, guess what? You are a grognard now. Third edition is dusty on its bottom shelf at the local gaming store. Make way for a new bunch of players.
Have you read Witchlight? Because it's not an adventure with "no violence," it's an adventure with no mandatory violence. There are multiple different ways supported in the adventure to approach every single encounter in the book. If anything, that's the opposite of "dumbing down" D&D. Having to add different possible outcomes to every encounter in an adventure based on how the players choose to approach it (hostilely or diplomatically) makes the books more complex, not less.
There is such a thing as "too complicated" or "complex for the sake of being complex". D&D 5e is filled with these types of rules minutia. An attack with a melee weapon is a normally type of melee weapon attack, but not always, and not all melee weapon attacks are attacks made with melee weapons. Natural Weapons sometimes count as Unarmed Strikes, except for very specific lineages/class features that don't and instead count as Simple Weapons. Most spells require you to be able to provide Verbal, Somatic, and Material spell components, meaning you're not holding a shield or wielding a weapon in at least one hand, unless you happen to be holding a spellcasting focus (every spellcasting class can use different items as a focus), which lets you perform Somatic components with the same hand that you're accessing the Material components with . . . unless the material components of the spell are consumed or have a listed cost in gold.
All of these weird mechanical quirks of the current system could be "dumbed down" in a way that is good. There are parts of the game that should be simplified for the purpose of making the game open to a larger amount of people. There are parts of it that absolutely shouldn't be simplified like this . . . but there also are quite a few notable parts of the hobby that really serve no purpose other than being complicated for the point of being complicated.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Funny thing is Mr. Grognard, I seem to only need to carry my laptop. You have fun with your three books, let me have fun with my... dolly.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Couldn't agree with this more.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I'de put more dragons and dragon minions in, the game is literally called Dungeons and Dragons, but how many times have you actually fought a dragon?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Hey, I’m one of those “grognards” that started in 2e and between all of the monster compendiums, “complete handbooks” and “player’s option” books it took 2 backpacks to bring everything and half the rules broke the game when used with the other half. The bloat and the optional rules shenanigans started way back when TSR still owned D&D, it’s nothing new.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Am I the only one who remembers Dungeonland?
Or
Mines of Madness?
Castle Greyhawk?
My point is that silly (and even fluffy) games have always been a part of DnD.
Y'all.
Thread is for discussing one's most desired change in D&D. Threads meander, but this one is meandering in directions that have already gotten countless threads locked.
Please do not contact or message me.
Stupid puns have been a part of the game since before WotC existed.