I have my issues with One D&D, but I think one thing it needs to be lauded for is its ability to keep things simple for new players while allowing room for lots of complexity for more advanced players who want it. In short, this “control the complexity” system is done by providing more advanced and far simpler options for the same thing. Now, 1DD isn’t making the game simpler. In fact, I’d say it’s making the game more complicated. But for players who don’t want their characters to be any more complicated than they were in 5e, they can keep them at a fairly similar level of complexity. So without further ado, let’s dive into where, why, and how this system is implemented.
[1] 1DD’s background system
So, as I explained in an earlier thread, 5e’s background system has always been lacking in complexity, changeability, and in-game importance. But with 1DD, you can pick what you get for your own background, and among those things, you get a feat! But anyways, we’re not here to talk about background importance; we’re here to talk about background complexity (among other things). So let’s get back on topic:
With the ability to customize your background and make it as cool and interesting as you want, there comes complexity. For intermediate to advanced players, this build-your-own-background system seems both easy to use and fun. To a new player, though, imagine how complex picking all your background details must be. But instead of scrapping the whole system because it might be too complicated for some people, Wizards of the Coast made a subsystem: sample backgrounds. Sample backgrounds have everything picked for you, so instead of going through all the options and becoming super confused by the build-your-own-background system, they can skip that step and take one that’s already made for them. The only added complexity, when compared to 5e backgrounds, would be the extra feat, and that is much more manageable.
This is a perfect example of how 1DD allows you to control the degree of complexity in your game and how it allows what would normally be a complex system to be accessed by experienced players without being forced on new ones. But in case you needed any more examples, I’ve got two more.
[2] Feats & ASIs
Feats, in my opinion at least, are one of the coolest things in the game, along with critical hits and whatever I decide to say is cool next. Anyways, the main problem with feats is not a problem with feats but with the way 5e used them. In 5e, they served as more of a side dish with ASI’s as the main entree. With the new system, it’s much harder for DMs to ban feats, and they are much more easily accessible for players who want to deal with that level of complexity. But for people who want it to be simpler, they can take the Ability Score Improvement feat and have it be no more complicated than a normal ASI. So at little cost to simplicity, all the cool and epic feats in the game are more available to everyone.
[3] Boons & beyond
The above two instances of options of limited complexity may be the biggest instances of this, but there are other, smaller instances of 1DD limiting the complexity of complex systems for those who want or need it to be limited. For example, when the class all you to pick Epic Boons at level 20, there are suggestions of what boons would make sense to pick for players who don’t want to go through the whole list of epic boons and deal with all of that complexity. And unless I’m much mistaken, the new 1DD playtest still has the “quick build” options to limit class complexity for those who want to.
So why do these changes matter? Why do the systems that add more complexity with options to limit it make the game better? They make it better because it means both new and advanced players can play the same game and have fun, just with different degrees of complexity. This way of adding complexity means the game designers can introduce more cool and unique ideas into the game while allowing ever player, new or advanced, to use it. So kudos to those 1DD play testers and good job building a future for D&D where it’s enjoyable and accessible to everyone.
I agree. There are some things I still need to warm up to, but this is only the second UA and one thing that really shows promise is making things accessible to newbies and crunchy enough for the veterans alike.
I will say that already we are seeing the results of the feedback many of us have given. The wording around D20 tests has been adjusted in the new version of the rules making it a bit nicer to read, the critical hit inspiration has been changed to a nat 1.
This Expert Classes document was written before Wizards saw a single piece of survey feedback. It does not take any feedback into account. The plan was always to try different variations on the rules and see which tested best.
That said.
My issue with "keep everything as bone-gnawingly soul-crushingly mind-stiflingly simple as possible and add very narrow, hedged-in, and generally discouraged options for people who cannot tolerate intense and egregious lack of depth" is...well. Apparent in that description. Backgrounds are a good example - the base system is quite quick and easy to grasp, but there's a suite of "I just can't be bothered to learn the game" presets for people who just can't be bothered to learn the game. The community blew its collective stack over it and demanded that the build-your-own system be scrapped in favor of making the presets the ONLY option, due to resistance to "losing" the current features and a perception that build-your-own was too complex for the poor newbies to grasp and thus shouldn't even be an option.
This Expert Classes document was written before Wizards saw a single piece of survey feedback. It does not take any feedback into account. The plan was always to try different variations on the rules and see which tested best.
That said.
My issue with "keep everything as bone-gnawingly soul-crushingly mind-stiflingly simple as possible and add very narrow, hedged-in, and generally discouraged options for people who cannot tolerate intense and egregious lack of depth" is...well. Apparent in that description. Backgrounds are a good example - the base system is quite quick and easy to grasp, but there's a suite of "I just can't be bothered to learn the game" presets for people who just can't be bothered to learn the game. The community blew its collective stack over it and demanded that the build-your-own system be scrapped in favor of making the presets the ONLY option, due to resistance to "losing" the current features and a perception that build-your-own was too complex for the poor newbies to grasp and thus shouldn't even be an option.
Why?
I mean if that is the case then why did they change the nat 20 to nat 1 for heroic inspiration, why have they reworded the D20 test stuff?
Either they changed there minds immediately after publishing, or they are looking at and taking feedback from a multiple of sources.
This Expert Classes document was written before Wizards saw a single piece of survey feedback. It does not take any feedback into account. The plan was always to try different variations on the rules and see which tested best.
That said.
My issue with "keep everything as bone-gnawingly soul-crushingly mind-stiflingly simple as possible and add very narrow, hedged-in, and generally discouraged options for people who cannot tolerate intense and egregious lack of depth" is...well. Apparent in that description. Backgrounds are a good example - the base system is quite quick and easy to grasp, but there's a suite of "I just can't be bothered to learn the game" presets for people who just can't be bothered to learn the game. The community blew its collective stack over it and demanded that the build-your-own system be scrapped in favor of making the presets the ONLY option, due to resistance to "losing" the current features and a perception that build-your-own was too complex for the poor newbies to grasp and thus shouldn't even be an option.
Why?
I'd say maybe to your assertion they did not integrate feedback into this one. I suspect most of this document was done before seeing survey results, but my guess is they saw a lot before they put it up and changing or adding one or two paragraphs on d20 rolls and crits is not unlikely.
As for your second point I almost saw no one complain about the backgrounds part of the first drop, there were complaints on the d20 roll, crits and some other things but the back ground part was almost universally loved.
This Expert Classes document was written before Wizards saw a single piece of survey feedback. It does not take any feedback into account. The plan was always to try different variations on the rules and see which tested best.
That said.
My issue with "keep everything as bone-gnawingly soul-crushingly mind-stiflingly simple as possible and add very narrow, hedged-in, and generally discouraged options for people who cannot tolerate intense and egregious lack of depth" is...well. Apparent in that description. Backgrounds are a good example - the base system is quite quick and easy to grasp, but there's a suite of "I just can't be bothered to learn the game" presets for people who just can't be bothered to learn the game. The community blew its collective stack over it and demanded that the build-your-own system be scrapped in favor of making the presets the ONLY option, due to resistance to "losing" the current features and a perception that build-your-own was too complex for the poor newbies to grasp and thus shouldn't even be an option.
Why?
1DD has added in more complex systems. They have provided simpler alternatives to those systems for players who find those systems to be too complicated or hard to understand and use. As I explained in my original post, 1DD is not making the game more simple with complex options for those who want them; They are doing the exact opposite, they are adding complexity with simpler alternatives. Just as some people like having more complex options, some people like having simpler options, and there's nothing wrong with like either of those things.
This Expert Classes document was written before Wizards saw a single piece of survey feedback. It does not take any feedback into account. The plan was always to try different variations on the rules and see which tested best.
That said.
My issue with "keep everything as bone-gnawingly soul-crushingly mind-stiflingly simple as possible and add very narrow, hedged-in, and generally discouraged options for people who cannot tolerate intense and egregious lack of depth" is...well. Apparent in that description. Backgrounds are a good example - the base system is quite quick and easy to grasp, but there's a suite of "I just can't be bothered to learn the game" presets for people who just can't be bothered to learn the game. The community blew its collective stack over it and demanded that the build-your-own system be scrapped in favor of making the presets the ONLY option, due to resistance to "losing" the current features and a perception that build-your-own was too complex for the poor newbies to grasp and thus shouldn't even be an option.
Why?
I mean if that is the case then why did they change the nat 20 to nat 1 for heroic inspiration, why have they reworded the D20 test stuff?
Either they changed there minds immediately after publishing, or they are looking at and taking feedback from a multiple of sources.
Didn’t the video have Crawford saying that has always been the plan? They have a few different options in the pipeline. It just so happened that something a number of people called for was something they were going to do anyway. And there are other options we’ve yet to see.
Wasn't the initial survey cut off on or around September the 14th? Then extended? It is very possible they received enough feedback to make the change in time for the release of the Expert packet.
I have my issues with One D&D, but I think one thing it needs to be lauded for is its ability to keep things simple for new players while allowing room for lots of complexity for more advanced players who want it. In short, this “control the complexity” system is done by providing more advanced and far simpler options for the same thing. Now, 1DD isn’t making the game simpler. In fact, I’d say it’s making the game more complicated. But for players who don’t want their characters to be any more complicated than they were in 5e, they can keep them at a fairly similar level of complexity. So without further ado, let’s dive into where, why, and how this system is implemented.
[1] 1DD’s background system
So, as I explained in an earlier thread, 5e’s background system has always been lacking in complexity, changeability, and in-game importance. But with 1DD, you can pick what you get for your own background, and among those things, you get a feat! But anyways, we’re not here to talk about background importance; we’re here to talk about background complexity (among other things). So let’s get back on topic:
With the ability to customize your background and make it as cool and interesting as you want, there comes complexity. For intermediate to advanced players, this build-your-own-background system seems both easy to use and fun. To a new player, though, imagine how complex picking all your background details must be. But instead of scrapping the whole system because it might be too complicated for some people, Wizards of the Coast made a subsystem: sample backgrounds. Sample backgrounds have everything picked for you, so instead of going through all the options and becoming super confused by the build-your-own-background system, they can skip that step and take one that’s already made for them. The only added complexity, when compared to 5e backgrounds, would be the extra feat, and that is much more manageable.
This is a perfect example of how 1DD allows you to control the degree of complexity in your game and how it allows what would normally be a complex system to be accessed by experienced players without being forced on new ones. But in case you needed any more examples, I’ve got two more.
[2] Feats & ASIs
Feats, in my opinion at least, are one of the coolest things in the game, along with critical hits and whatever I decide to say is cool next. Anyways, the main problem with feats is not a problem with feats but with the way 5e used them. In 5e, they served as more of a side dish with ASI’s as the main entree. With the new system, it’s much harder for DMs to ban feats, and they are much more easily accessible for players who want to deal with that level of complexity. But for people who want it to be simpler, they can take the Ability Score Improvement feat and have it be no more complicated than a normal ASI. So at little cost to simplicity, all the cool and epic feats in the game are more available to everyone.
[3] Boons & beyond
The above two instances of options of limited complexity may be the biggest instances of this, but there are other, smaller instances of 1DD limiting the complexity of complex systems for those who want or need it to be limited. For example, when the class all you to pick Epic Boons at level 20, there are suggestions of what boons would make sense to pick for players who don’t want to go through the whole list of epic boons and deal with all of that complexity. And unless I’m much mistaken, the new 1DD playtest still has the “quick build” options to limit class complexity for those who want to.
So why do these changes matter? Why do the systems that add more complexity with options to limit it make the game better? They make it better because it means both new and advanced players can play the same game and have fun, just with different degrees of complexity. This way of adding complexity means the game designers can introduce more cool and unique ideas into the game while allowing ever player, new or advanced, to use it. So kudos to those 1DD play testers and good job building a future for D&D where it’s enjoyable and accessible to everyone.
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.I agree. There are some things I still need to warm up to, but this is only the second UA and one thing that really shows promise is making things accessible to newbies and crunchy enough for the veterans alike.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I will say that already we are seeing the results of the feedback many of us have given. The wording around D20 tests has been adjusted in the new version of the rules making it a bit nicer to read, the critical hit inspiration has been changed to a nat 1.
This Expert Classes document was written before Wizards saw a single piece of survey feedback. It does not take any feedback into account. The plan was always to try different variations on the rules and see which tested best.
That said.
My issue with "keep everything as bone-gnawingly soul-crushingly mind-stiflingly simple as possible and add very narrow, hedged-in, and generally discouraged options for people who cannot tolerate intense and egregious lack of depth" is...well. Apparent in that description. Backgrounds are a good example - the base system is quite quick and easy to grasp, but there's a suite of "I just can't be bothered to learn the game" presets for people who just can't be bothered to learn the game. The community blew its collective stack over it and demanded that the build-your-own system be scrapped in favor of making the presets the ONLY option, due to resistance to "losing" the current features and a perception that build-your-own was too complex for the poor newbies to grasp and thus shouldn't even be an option.
Why?
Please do not contact or message me.
I mean if that is the case then why did they change the nat 20 to nat 1 for heroic inspiration, why have they reworded the D20 test stuff?
Either they changed there minds immediately after publishing, or they are looking at and taking feedback from a multiple of sources.
I'd say maybe to your assertion they did not integrate feedback into this one. I suspect most of this document was done before seeing survey results, but my guess is they saw a lot before they put it up and changing or adding one or two paragraphs on d20 rolls and crits is not unlikely.
As for your second point I almost saw no one complain about the backgrounds part of the first drop, there were complaints on the d20 roll, crits and some other things but the back ground part was almost universally loved.
1DD has added in more complex systems. They have provided simpler alternatives to those systems for players who find those systems to be too complicated or hard to understand and use. As I explained in my original post, 1DD is not making the game more simple with complex options for those who want them; They are doing the exact opposite, they are adding complexity with simpler alternatives. Just as some people like having more complex options, some people like having simpler options, and there's nothing wrong with like either of those things.
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.Didn’t the video have Crawford saying that has always been the plan? They have a few different options in the pipeline. It just so happened that something a number of people called for was something they were going to do anyway. And there are other options we’ve yet to see.
Wasn't the initial survey cut off on or around September the 14th? Then extended? It is very possible they received enough feedback to make the change in time for the release of the Expert packet.