Discussing the "One D&D" Playtest

Chloe Sullivan said:
I'm not even being hyperbolic, I've seen a lot of people treat D&D as a sort of hazing where you have to "earn" the right to have fun.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This might be a legacy thing? Supposedly items like the deck of many things was apparently originally about taking turns being amused by others misfortune and whatnot.

Parzival said:
I thought this thread was about the new edition.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


DnD for brand reasons by necessity has to keep legacy stuff from older editions (especially this version since its supposed to be backwards compatible with 5e and 5e was meant to reunite players from every edition) so it will always be at least somewhat relevant to the game.
 
Qrohnos said:
DnD for brand reasons by necessity has to keep legacy stuff from older editions (especially this version since its supposed to be backwards compatible with 5e and 5e was meant to reunite players from every edition) so it will always be at least somewhat relevant to the game.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Also, D&D development under WotC has been very reactive, mostly driven by specific complaints from part or all of the player base.

When they developed 3rd edition, for example, they surveyed players and addressed a long list of specific irritations that various players found frustrating in 2nd edition, like non-weapon proficiency slots being too rare and mostly just dependent on base stat score rather than investment.

When they developed 4th edition, they were addressing widespread complaints about the system being too complicated, crunchy, and severely imbalanced, and very painful in the first few levels.

When they developed 5th edition, they were addressing widespread complaints that 4th edition was too different and too streamlined, with classes not being clearly differentiated enough, et cetera.

Is this cycle going to be any different?
 
I mean, I could see it being different insofar as that I doubt that Mearls and co. listen to any player feedback that doesn't align with their own opinions, so we might end up with them not addressing any widespread complaints at all but instead going "Zak S. says we're not OSR enough for the grogs, add forty pages of hit location and critical fumble tables and also some gender essentialism."
 
tomwritestuff said:
Is this cycle going to be any different?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Given the restrictions they're under, it's going to be more like the transition to 3.x to 3.5 or the mishmash of odnd to 2e than the examples given I think (the latter might be a bad example actually since there were pretty significant changes during that span of the game)
 
You are ignoring content by this member.
The Narrator said:
I mean, I could see it being different insofar as that I doubt that Mearls and co. listen to any player feedback that doesn't align with their own opinions, so we might end up with them not addressing any widespread complaints at all but instead going "Zak S. says we're not OSR enough for the grogs, add forty pages of hit location and critical fumble tables and also some gender essentialism."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Its so funny to me that the people running D&D are guys who have fully internalized the idea that D&D should be bad to retain its brand identity for grognards who are, to be honest, probably not going to play D&D anymore anyways since it's getting "too woke" or whatever.
 
SunnySprings said:
Its so funny to me that the people running D&D are guys who have fully internalized the idea that D&D should be bad to retain its brand identity for grognards who are, to be honest, probably not going to play D&D anymore anyways since it's getting "too woke" or whatever.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It can be argued that the objective of D&D changed over time from "recreate the fantasy genre" to "recreate older versions of D&D."
 
SunnySprings said:
Its so funny to me that the people running D&D are guys who have fully internalized the idea that D&D should be bad to retain its brand identity for grognards who are, to be honest, probably not going to play D&D anymore anyways since it's getting "too woke" or whatever.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Lol, the lore for 5e keeps doing less woke shit than 2e. Look at the giant *and entirely unforced, since older editions were better about it* messes they made with the Hadozee and the Vistani.
 
SunnySprings said:
Its so funny to me that the people running D&D are guys who have fully internalized the idea that D&D should be bad to retain its brand identity for grognards who are, to be honest, probably not going to play D&D anymore anyways since it's getting "too woke" or whatever.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's not even lore stuff. It's the design of the game itself. Stuff like ability scores still existing falls under that category (as opposed to just having the bonuses exist since those are what are relevant to the vast majority of rolls)

In the case of 5.5/6e though, it's bound to the same legacy design because it's bound to 5e.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Back
Top