It's also apparent that most, if not all, of these surveys do ask you to identify how much you balance your time playing D&D between being a DM and being a player. Depending on how sophisticated their analysis of these surveys go (I have my skepticism, largely because I've never seen how WotC actually compiles these surveys, it seems a lot of "initiative" WotC rolls with is based on cherry picked feedback with some attention to social media volume) they could actually discern between "DM perspective" and "player perspective." Frankly though I don't think the perspective is as binary split as Seattle seems to be arguing. At the end of the day the DMs screen is there to keep an element of surprise or suspense in the game but functionally I feel D&D is best played when the players and DMs are literally on the same page. Saying the rules compromises (trying to one up Davyd on the safest terminology) a DMs ability to run a game the game they want I think betrays more a resistance to the rules set than any real inherent flaw in the game, and yes, there are many many other rules systems out there that may be more to someone's likings.
No no, not being literal, "ask Dungeon Masters" - that's not practical - what I'm saying is that the game designers need to game test their "rules" from a Dungeon Masters perspective. But enough said. Only Dungeon Masters can relate to my statement.
I am what people call a 'forever DM' and have spent an almost negligible amount of time on the other side of the screen. I am very much a DM and very much do not 'relate' to your statement; for D&D to be a game that's fun for everyone, it needs to be designed with respect to everyone's perspective, not just DMs and not just players.
No no, not being literal, "ask Dungeon Masters" - that's not practical - what I'm saying is that the game designers need to game test their "rules" from a Dungeon Masters perspective. But enough said. Only Dungeon Masters can relate to my statement.
If you take look at the way the survey's are designed (like the current one that resurrected this thread that asks you "have you played or DM'd subclass x?") there is plenty of space for someone to put in qualitative responses prefaced with "as a DM ...". The idea that the D&D studio at Wizards doesn't take the DM experience of the game into account is just wrong, plain and simple. It looks to me that they, like every other professional game development shop looks at the whole game holistically. 5e makes the game probably the easiest edition to play as a player and as a DM.
No no, not being literal, "ask Dungeon Masters" - that's not practical - what I'm saying is that the game designers need to game test their "rules" from a Dungeon Masters perspective. But enough said. Only Dungeon Masters can relate to my statement.
I have only been DMing for about 35ish years and 5e has been the easiest edition to DM for. Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I honestly can't relate to your statement at all.
... game designers need to game test their "rules" from a Dungeon Masters perspective.
Game designers need to test their rules from the perspective of everyone who will use - and thus potentially abuse or misuse - them. And that's everybody at the table, DMs and players alike. There is no meaningful difference between DM and player in terms of the rules, only in terms of their role during the game. All the more so since not every group even fills those roles the same way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
... game designers need to game test their "rules" from a Dungeon Masters perspective.
Game designers need to test their rules from the perspective of everyone who will use - and thus potentially abuse or misuse - them. And that's everybody at the table, DMs and players alike. There is no meaningful difference between DM and player in terms of the rules, only in terms of their role during the game. All the more so since not every group even fills those roles the same way.
Well to be fair the DM has a ton more leeway when it comes to the rules.
Well to be fair the DM has a ton more leeway when it comes to the rules.
Then we're talking houserules/homebrew, not the official rules - and that's not something the designers can test. The official rules, as published in the books, are the same for everyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I disagree. Players refer to "rules" and live by those "rules" on pages. Dungeon Masters, negotiating players expectations of the "rules", are hamstrung, crippled by game designers and why they need to only accept Dungeon Masters' feedback. Players play....Dungeon Masters have to create within the playerss expectations of the "rules", let it be spamming Detect Magic every time the DM speaks (forcing characters to wait out, else find something to do for 100 rounds while casting Detect Magic as ritual), to allowing nearly every race see in the dim darkness (limited to shadows, but sight nonetheless).... . Devs should only listen to Dungeon Masters for reason mentioned.
While DM's do a ton of work as you mentioned above, the players have to play the game, and they need to know what their characters are going to do, how they want them to progress, etc. Any system that does not take into account the needs/desires of both the players and the DMs will fail.
Just as an example, there are lot of things in the PHB that could be reorganized or clarified for the benefit of DMs and Players.
The Player's Handbook needs to be entirely setting agnostic. It needs a complete description of scores and how to generate them, followed by a section on each fantasy Race. All Player Characters ought to get 4 points of scores for their chosen race, with 2 points in the primary attribute the race is known for that cannot be changed. and the other two points can be used as the player wishes. Humans would be able to use their points in whatever way they liked.
Each Class needs a complete work-up that details all Class benefits and all standard sub-classes. Wild Magic is setting specific, and any of the sub-class that involves it needs to be removed from the core rules.
The Alignment system description is sufficient as is, but it needs to stress that no player character ever remains faithful to the tenets of their Alignment at all times. It might be best to point out that Societies have Alignments, and that players may or may not follow those precepts. All player characters are assumed to be Heroes of a sort, and the concept of the "Anti-Hero" should be discussed, with the emphasis on the Hero part. That's how Evil player characters can fit into games.
The combat system is fine as is. The rules for skills are also decent enough, but the Tool Proficiency rules need to be removed, as they just create confusion. The Inspiration system needs to be made a mandatory part of the game, as it's by far the best new thing from 5th edition. All player characters ought to have one point of Inspiration, and it would recharge if the DM wishes or on a Short Rest.
The Resting rules are too vague. Any time a single hour of downtime passes in game, all short rest abilities ought to recharge. The rules for Long Rests and Exhaustion are confusing. Some races don't require sleep, and as such, could never become exhausted by sleep deprivation. At will abilities ought not disturb resting at all. Using Class abilities may require Concentration, like using Sorcery points to create spell slots.
The Player's Handbook needs a Character Sheet that can be scanned and printed out.
The Monster Manual needs a chapter devoted to Non-Player characters, covering Commoners and any variants that have special training, from Guards all the way to Archmages.
The Dungeon Master's Guide needs to be a pretty weighty tome. It needs to cover the Tiers of play, then discuss how to make maps. There should be no mention of making new setting, only how the players will map existing ones that aren't part of the core rules and might only get a brief mention if they are discussed at all. Options for combat needs to be discussed in detail, with the notation at every step that using any of those rules slows down the game.
Feats deserve their own section, and it ought to be impossible to gain class specific features using them. Even adding weapons to the list for classes that have a limited list works out poorly, and giving classes that can't wear armor the ability to do so is overpowered. The Racial feats need to be expanded to include some that are specific to Humans. Weapon specific feats need to apply to all weapons, and need to be clearly labeled as applying only to Martial weapons. There is a Crossbow Expert feat, but no Bow Expert feat, which isn't fair to Rangers.
Multi-classing has become a detriment to the game by mixing things up so much that each and every player character who takes more than two classes is more powerful than any base class. Adding feats on top of this makes each player character their own unique class, which is nice for the Players, but a nightmare if the DM needs to make balanced encounters.
There ought to be no rules for mechanical benefits or penalties based on real world disorders. Rules about excessively low physical scores need to clearly show at what point a given player character would be unable to function. Rules about excessively low mental scores are very difficult. Few people who play D&D well enough for the other players to enjoy their presence have a low intelligence, wisdom is impossible to measure, and a low Charisma ought to make a character who played it well obnoxious.
The magic item listing ought to have a table that shows items by Tier as well as prices listed in Gold Pieces.
The DM's Workshop ought to have rules for making new sub-classes, but not new Classes. Rules for making new Monsters, rules for different roles NPCs can fill in society, and a discussion on Alignment that goes into enough detail that the DM can answer questions needs to be present. There ought to be no rules for anything that changes the magic system in any way, because it's a fundamental part of D&D, just like the "sacred six" scores, Alignment, and hit points. The rules for telling how badly off a given opponent is that came from 4th edition are useful, such as "bloodied" when at half hit points, and perhaps at one quarter opponents would be "battered".
The DMG needs to end with a list of sources, such as the books or movies that inspired the rule systems, with a special thanks to Gary Gygax, who started the whole shabang.
The core rules ought not contain any information about cosmology, nor deities. That would be a separate book, as would rules for Exploration, and each setting would also be a stand-alone book.
I disagree. Players refer to "rules" and live by those "rules" on pages. Dungeon Masters, negotiating players expectations of the "rules", are hamstrung, crippled by game designers and why they need to only accept Dungeon Masters' feedback. Players play....Dungeon Masters have to create within the playerss expectations of the "rules", let it be spamming Detect Magic every time the DM speaks (forcing characters to wait out, else find something to do for 100 rounds while casting Detect Magic as ritual), to allowing nearly every race see in the dim darkness (limited to shadows, but sight nonetheless).... . Devs should only listen to Dungeon Masters for reason mentioned.
While DM's do a ton of work as you mentioned above, the players have to play the game, and they need to know what their characters are going to do, how they want them to progress, etc. Any system that does not take into account the needs/desires of both the players and the DMs will fail.
Just as an example, there are lot of things in the PHB that could be reorganized or clarified for the benefit of DMs and Players.
And to elaborate on that, it is the 'Players' Handbook,' not the 'Dungeon Master's Character Creation Supplement'
I disagree. Players refer to "rules" and live by those "rules" on pages. Dungeon Masters, negotiating players expectations of the "rules", are hamstrung, crippled by game designers and why they need to only accept Dungeon Masters' feedback. Players play....Dungeon Masters have to create within the playerss expectations of the "rules", let it be spamming Detect Magic every time the DM speaks (forcing characters to wait out, else find something to do for 100 rounds while casting Detect Magic as ritual), to allowing nearly every race see in the dim darkness (limited to shadows, but sight nonetheless).... . Devs should only listen to Dungeon Masters for reason mentioned.
While DM's do a ton of work as you mentioned above, the players have to play the game, and they need to know what their characters are going to do, how they want them to progress, etc. Any system that does not take into account the needs/desires of both the players and the DMs will fail.
Just as an example, there are lot of things in the PHB that could be reorganized or clarified for the benefit of DMs and Players.
And to elaborate on that, it is the 'Players' Handbook,' not the 'Dungeon Master's Character Creation Supplement'
^^^^ THIS ^^^^
And yet the DM needs and references said book far more often than the Players.
I disagree. Players refer to "rules" and live by those "rules" on pages. Dungeon Masters, negotiating players expectations of the "rules", are hamstrung, crippled by game designers and why they need to only accept Dungeon Masters' feedback. Players play....Dungeon Masters have to create within the playerss expectations of the "rules", let it be spamming Detect Magic every time the DM speaks (forcing characters to wait out, else find something to do for 100 rounds while casting Detect Magic as ritual), to allowing nearly every race see in the dim darkness (limited to shadows, but sight nonetheless).... . Devs should only listen to Dungeon Masters for reason mentioned.
While DM's do a ton of work as you mentioned above, the players have to play the game, and they need to know what their characters are going to do, how they want them to progress, etc. Any system that does not take into account the needs/desires of both the players and the DMs will fail.
Just as an example, there are lot of things in the PHB that could be reorganized or clarified for the benefit of DMs and Players.
And to elaborate on that, it is the 'Players' Handbook,' not the 'Dungeon Master's Character Creation Supplement'
^^^^ THIS ^^^^
And yet the DM needs and references said book far more often than the Players.
Really..... maybe if there is only one player in the campaign, but combined?
yes more than the players combined. Each player need only concern themselves with those bits that revolve about their character. The DM is expected to not only reference those bits but any others bits that might be pertinent. Additionally if 44 years in the hobby has taught me anything it is that players will misinterpret, misremember, and generally misread abilities if they even bother to reference the book after character creation. There is a reason the PHB, DMG, & MM are referred to as the 3 Cores. A good DM will find themselves referencing them constantly (if not during game play; most certainly during prep time).
Additionally if 44 years in the hobby has taught me anything it is that players will misinterpret, misremember, and generally misread abilities if they even bother to reference the book after character creation.
That is more of a reason to write rule books with the players in mind so it is easier for them to remember the rules.
There is a reason the PHB, DMG, & MM are referred to as the 3 Cores. A good DM will find themselves referencing them constantly (if not during game play; most certainly during prep time).
Enforcing RAW is not a sign of a good GM. A GM is measured by the fun they can create rather than how close they stick to RAW.
In my opinion, a GM that constantly references the books out of need rather than desire is a sign that the GM is not familiar with the rules and/or the rules are poorly written.
A well written manual is one that does not require the user to constantly go back to it for clarity.
1) Each player need only concern themselves with those bits that revolve about their character.
2) The DM is expected to not only reference those bits but any others bits that might be pertinent.
1) Players are, hopefully, going to keep playing and thus playing more characters - usually different ones.
2) Which bits of the PHB are pertinent that don't revolve around the characters? If they're not applicable to a PC, how can they be pertinent?
Which bits are pertinent? why any that do not directly involve any one player. Your arguments assume all the players are the same class, all the npcs they encounter are of similar class, etc...
For example: a Party consisting of a Rogue, Cleric, Fighter, Sorcerer, and Bard are at the table. They find themselves in an encounter with a Druid, Wizard, Warlock, Ranger, and Paladin. Now which bits are pertinent to the scenario and which are not?
Additionally if 44 years in the hobby has taught me anything it is that players will misinterpret, misremember, and generally misread abilities if they even bother to reference the book after character creation.
That is more of a reason to write rule books with the players in mind so it is easier for them to remember the rules.
There is a reason the PHB, DMG, & MM are referred to as the 3 Cores. A good DM will find themselves referencing them constantly (if not during game play; most certainly during prep time).
Enforcing RAW is not a sign of a good GM. A GM is measured by the fun they can create rather than how close they stick to RAW.
In my opinion, a GM that constantly references the books out of need rather than desire is a sign that the GM is not familiar with the rules and/or the rules are poorly written.
A well written manual is one that does not require the user to constantly go back to it for clarity.
So much to unpack here... let's start with the well written manual comment shall we? The manuals as they exist are well written. The problem with any TTRPG is the shear volume of data required for even an indy game in this hobby. No one without the assistance of an eidetic memory is going to be able to avoid referencing the manuals. (unless they just do not plainly care about the rules at all.)
As to the "enforcing RAW" comment? Players care more about that than the average DM. More specifically Players care about RAW in as far as they able to mutilate and abuse it. (3.x proved this). A Good DM cares about Consistency which can only be attained if there is a common base of rules on which to build. RAW provides that. Now it is not enough that Good DM understand RAW; they also need to be able to grasp the intent of each rule, the RAI as we like to call it. RAW vs RAI is why DMs exist. We act as the arbiters of interpretation when RAW and RAI do not match up. And Good DM will balance the two along with the ROC (Rule Of Cool).
As to your first comment about writing books so it is easier for players to recall and not reference them... Never under estimate the shear amount of laziness, malice, ignorance, and/or stupidity that any one player is capable of demonstrating. Making something idiot proof only means they will make a better idiot.
As to the subject of the thread: A 6e will come only when sales of 5e products start to dip dramatically. WotC is in this to make money as long as 5e continues to do so consistently there will not be a need for 6e.
"Never under estimate the shear amount of laziness, malice, ignorance, and/or stupidity that any one player is capable of demonstrating. Making something idiot proof only means they will make a better idiot."
From just reading over your posts in this thread, this seems to sum up your opinions on D&D players. Do the people you play with know this?
1) Each player need only concern themselves with those bits that revolve about their character.
2) The DM is expected to not only reference those bits but any others bits that might be pertinent.
1) Players are, hopefully, going to keep playing and thus playing more characters - usually different ones.
2) Which bits of the PHB are pertinent that don't revolve around the characters? If they're not applicable to a PC, how can they be pertinent?
Which bits are pertinent? why any that do not directly involve any one player. Your arguments assume all the players are the same class, all the npcs they encounter are of similar class, etc...
For example: a Party consisting of a Rogue, Cleric, Fighter, Sorcerer, and Bard are at the table. They find themselves in an encounter with a Druid, Wizard, Warlock, Ranger, and Paladin. Now which bits are pertinent to the scenario and which are not?
If it's pertinent to a player it's pertinent to a player. My argument assumes not that all player characters are of the same class, my argument assumes that all classes and all mechanics might be used by players. If not for their current character, then maybe for the next one. Hence, all that content and all those mechanics are pertinent to players. There's nothing in the PHB not of interest to any player.
To put it differently, looking at a single scenario is pointless. Players play through an enormous amount of them, and likely (hopefully) not all with the same character. There will be a time for any and all mechanics to be directly applicable for a player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As to your first comment about writing books so it is easier for players to recall and not reference them... Never under estimate the shear amount of laziness, malice, ignorance, and/or stupidity that any one player is capable of demonstrating. Making something idiot proof only means they will make a better idiot.
So there's no point whatsoever to writing rules in a way that's easy to understand, internalize and use? That's a pretty bleak point of view.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's also apparent that most, if not all, of these surveys do ask you to identify how much you balance your time playing D&D between being a DM and being a player. Depending on how sophisticated their analysis of these surveys go (I have my skepticism, largely because I've never seen how WotC actually compiles these surveys, it seems a lot of "initiative" WotC rolls with is based on cherry picked feedback with some attention to social media volume) they could actually discern between "DM perspective" and "player perspective." Frankly though I don't think the perspective is as binary split as Seattle seems to be arguing. At the end of the day the DMs screen is there to keep an element of surprise or suspense in the game but functionally I feel D&D is best played when the players and DMs are literally on the same page. Saying the rules compromises (trying to one up Davyd on the safest terminology) a DMs ability to run a game the game they want I think betrays more a resistance to the rules set than any real inherent flaw in the game, and yes, there are many many other rules systems out there that may be more to someone's likings.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I am what people call a 'forever DM' and have spent an almost negligible amount of time on the other side of the screen. I am very much a DM and very much do not 'relate' to your statement; for D&D to be a game that's fun for everyone, it needs to be designed with respect to everyone's perspective, not just DMs and not just players.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
If you take look at the way the survey's are designed (like the current one that resurrected this thread that asks you "have you played or DM'd subclass x?") there is plenty of space for someone to put in qualitative responses prefaced with "as a DM ...". The idea that the D&D studio at Wizards doesn't take the DM experience of the game into account is just wrong, plain and simple. It looks to me that they, like every other professional game development shop looks at the whole game holistically. 5e makes the game probably the easiest edition to play as a player and as a DM.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I have only been DMing for about 35ish years and 5e has been the easiest edition to DM for. Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I honestly can't relate to your statement at all.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Game designers need to test their rules from the perspective of everyone who will use - and thus potentially abuse or misuse - them. And that's everybody at the table, DMs and players alike. There is no meaningful difference between DM and player in terms of the rules, only in terms of their role during the game. All the more so since not every group even fills those roles the same way.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well to be fair the DM has a ton more leeway when it comes to the rules.
But I get what you mean.
Then we're talking houserules/homebrew, not the official rules - and that's not something the designers can test. The official rules, as published in the books, are the same for everyone.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
While DM's do a ton of work as you mentioned above, the players have to play the game, and they need to know what their characters are going to do, how they want them to progress, etc. Any system that does not take into account the needs/desires of both the players and the DMs will fail.
Just as an example, there are lot of things in the PHB that could be reorganized or clarified for the benefit of DMs and Players.
The Player's Handbook needs to be entirely setting agnostic. It needs a complete description of scores and how to generate them, followed by a section on each fantasy Race. All Player Characters ought to get 4 points of scores for their chosen race, with 2 points in the primary attribute the race is known for that cannot be changed. and the other two points can be used as the player wishes. Humans would be able to use their points in whatever way they liked.
Each Class needs a complete work-up that details all Class benefits and all standard sub-classes. Wild Magic is setting specific, and any of the sub-class that involves it needs to be removed from the core rules.
The Alignment system description is sufficient as is, but it needs to stress that no player character ever remains faithful to the tenets of their Alignment at all times. It might be best to point out that Societies have Alignments, and that players may or may not follow those precepts. All player characters are assumed to be Heroes of a sort, and the concept of the "Anti-Hero" should be discussed, with the emphasis on the Hero part. That's how Evil player characters can fit into games.
The combat system is fine as is. The rules for skills are also decent enough, but the Tool Proficiency rules need to be removed, as they just create confusion. The Inspiration system needs to be made a mandatory part of the game, as it's by far the best new thing from 5th edition. All player characters ought to have one point of Inspiration, and it would recharge if the DM wishes or on a Short Rest.
The Resting rules are too vague. Any time a single hour of downtime passes in game, all short rest abilities ought to recharge. The rules for Long Rests and Exhaustion are confusing. Some races don't require sleep, and as such, could never become exhausted by sleep deprivation. At will abilities ought not disturb resting at all. Using Class abilities may require Concentration, like using Sorcery points to create spell slots.
The Player's Handbook needs a Character Sheet that can be scanned and printed out.
The Monster Manual needs a chapter devoted to Non-Player characters, covering Commoners and any variants that have special training, from Guards all the way to Archmages.
The Dungeon Master's Guide needs to be a pretty weighty tome. It needs to cover the Tiers of play, then discuss how to make maps. There should be no mention of making new setting, only how the players will map existing ones that aren't part of the core rules and might only get a brief mention if they are discussed at all. Options for combat needs to be discussed in detail, with the notation at every step that using any of those rules slows down the game.
Feats deserve their own section, and it ought to be impossible to gain class specific features using them. Even adding weapons to the list for classes that have a limited list works out poorly, and giving classes that can't wear armor the ability to do so is overpowered. The Racial feats need to be expanded to include some that are specific to Humans. Weapon specific feats need to apply to all weapons, and need to be clearly labeled as applying only to Martial weapons. There is a Crossbow Expert feat, but no Bow Expert feat, which isn't fair to Rangers.
Multi-classing has become a detriment to the game by mixing things up so much that each and every player character who takes more than two classes is more powerful than any base class. Adding feats on top of this makes each player character their own unique class, which is nice for the Players, but a nightmare if the DM needs to make balanced encounters.
There ought to be no rules for mechanical benefits or penalties based on real world disorders. Rules about excessively low physical scores need to clearly show at what point a given player character would be unable to function. Rules about excessively low mental scores are very difficult. Few people who play D&D well enough for the other players to enjoy their presence have a low intelligence, wisdom is impossible to measure, and a low Charisma ought to make a character who played it well obnoxious.
The magic item listing ought to have a table that shows items by Tier as well as prices listed in Gold Pieces.
The DM's Workshop ought to have rules for making new sub-classes, but not new Classes. Rules for making new Monsters, rules for different roles NPCs can fill in society, and a discussion on Alignment that goes into enough detail that the DM can answer questions needs to be present. There ought to be no rules for anything that changes the magic system in any way, because it's a fundamental part of D&D, just like the "sacred six" scores, Alignment, and hit points. The rules for telling how badly off a given opponent is that came from 4th edition are useful, such as "bloodied" when at half hit points, and perhaps at one quarter opponents would be "battered".
The DMG needs to end with a list of sources, such as the books or movies that inspired the rule systems, with a special thanks to Gary Gygax, who started the whole shabang.
The core rules ought not contain any information about cosmology, nor deities. That would be a separate book, as would rules for Exploration, and each setting would also be a stand-alone book.
<Insert clever signature here>
^^^^ THIS ^^^^
And yet the DM needs and references said book far more often than the Players.
yes more than the players combined.
Each player need only concern themselves with those bits that revolve about their character.
The DM is expected to not only reference those bits but any others bits that might be pertinent.
Additionally if 44 years in the hobby has taught me anything it is that players will misinterpret, misremember, and generally misread abilities if they even bother to reference the book after character creation.
There is a reason the PHB, DMG, & MM are referred to as the 3 Cores. A good DM will find themselves referencing them constantly (if not during game play; most certainly during prep time).
That is more of a reason to write rule books with the players in mind so it is easier for them to remember the rules.
Enforcing RAW is not a sign of a good GM. A GM is measured by the fun they can create rather than how close they stick to RAW.
In my opinion, a GM that constantly references the books out of need rather than desire is a sign that the GM is not familiar with the rules and/or the rules are poorly written.
A well written manual is one that does not require the user to constantly go back to it for clarity.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Because the books are so expensive
1) Players are, hopefully, going to keep playing and thus playing more characters - usually different ones.
2) Which bits of the PHB are pertinent that don't revolve around the characters? If they're not applicable to a PC, how can they be pertinent?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Which bits are pertinent? why any that do not directly involve any one player. Your arguments assume all the players are the same class, all the npcs they encounter are of similar class, etc...
For example: a Party consisting of a Rogue, Cleric, Fighter, Sorcerer, and Bard are at the table. They find themselves in an encounter with a Druid, Wizard, Warlock, Ranger, and Paladin.
Now which bits are pertinent to the scenario and which are not?
So much to unpack here...
let's start with the well written manual comment shall we?
The manuals as they exist are well written. The problem with any TTRPG is the shear volume of data required for even an indy game in this hobby. No one without the assistance of an eidetic memory is going to be able to avoid referencing the manuals. (unless they just do not plainly care about the rules at all.)
As to the "enforcing RAW" comment? Players care more about that than the average DM. More specifically Players care about RAW in as far as they able to mutilate and abuse it. (3.x proved this).
A Good DM cares about Consistency which can only be attained if there is a common base of rules on which to build. RAW provides that.
Now it is not enough that Good DM understand RAW; they also need to be able to grasp the intent of each rule, the RAI as we like to call it. RAW vs RAI is why DMs exist. We act as the arbiters of interpretation when RAW and RAI do not match up. And Good DM will balance the two along with the ROC (Rule Of Cool).
As to your first comment about writing books so it is easier for players to recall and not reference them...
Never under estimate the shear amount of laziness, malice, ignorance, and/or stupidity that any one player is capable of demonstrating.
Making something idiot proof only means they will make a better idiot.
As to the subject of the thread: A 6e will come only when sales of 5e products start to dip dramatically.
WotC is in this to make money as long as 5e continues to do so consistently there will not be a need for 6e.
From just reading over your posts in this thread, this seems to sum up your opinions on D&D players. Do the people you play with know this?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If it's pertinent to a player it's pertinent to a player. My argument assumes not that all player characters are of the same class, my argument assumes that all classes and all mechanics might be used by players. If not for their current character, then maybe for the next one. Hence, all that content and all those mechanics are pertinent to players. There's nothing in the PHB not of interest to any player.
To put it differently, looking at a single scenario is pointless. Players play through an enormous amount of them, and likely (hopefully) not all with the same character. There will be a time for any and all mechanics to be directly applicable for a player.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So there's no point whatsoever to writing rules in a way that's easy to understand, internalize and use? That's a pretty bleak point of view.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].