D&D General Less is More: Why You Can't Get What You Want in D&D

[TiQuinn]

Clearly that’s what all the kids want.

 

[Minigiant]

Clearly that’s what all the kids want.

Yes?

Again.

Less is More only works if your audience agrees on the Less and you design that Less.

 

[TiQuinn]

Yes?

Again.

Less is More only works if your audience agrees on the Less and you design that Less.

Please. Not again.

 

[Horwath]

WOTC attempted to futureproof 2024 spell lists by going from Class based Spell lists to Source based Spell lists.

only way to future proof the spell lists is to have all spell available to all casters.
and you proceed with design from that point.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

only way to future proof the spell lists is to have all spell available to all casters.
and you proceed with design from that point.

Nah. You can future proof spells easily with tags (or traits or whatever you want to call it).

Give each spell traits that describe the spell thematically.

• Magic Missile = Force, Projectile
• Shield = Protection, Force, Wall
• Charm Person = Emotional
• Teleportation = Teleportation, Conjuration

Design each class so that they get a subset of the spells available.

Bard: The bard has access to all spells with the Sound, Emotional or Illusion tags.

The only way that this cannot function is if someone introduces a new tag in a later book, since now old classes must be updated by considering the new tag. As long as the tags are properly designed, this should work well.

With this system it becomes trivial to add new classes, and trivial to add new spells.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Tashas displayed that the WOTC team

1. is at their limit creatively of what they sre passionate about
2. don't not leave enough design and power space in subclasses and feats that they could tinker without easily making OP stuff (Ie Peace and Twilight Clerics, psionic subclasses and feats.

There is a belief that 5e was designed to be shelfware and it shows. It shows hard.

It's that frankly the main lead designers of D&D dont relate to their much younger audience.

And they didn't provide enough space to attempt it without creating a new subsystem.

I am only briefly re-entering to make a small point.

One of the issues that I address, in passing, in the very verbose essay that kicked this off is that we should be careful when it comes to thinking that our own personal preferences are the same as "the community" or even large groups of it.

In addition, we should probably avoid trying to cast aspersions on designers by assuming that we can read their minds.

In my opinion, I think that the following two things are true-

1. The people at WoTC that make D&D are, in fact, quite passionate about D&D. Any time I have seen them speak about D&D, or otherwise engage on the topic, their passion shines through. Of course, part of being a designer for a successful commercial product is that you aren't just designing for your own feels and vibes, but you also have to design for the product's market, and within other constraints (cost/benefit, corporate standards and goals, the "brand" and so on). In other words, you aren't given free reign to do whatever you want. But this doesn't mean you aren't passionate or creative. It's easier, in many ways, to design whatever you want without worrying about things like "sales" or "commercial appeal" or "will people think I have a bizarre fetish for flamingoes" than to have to channel your vision within constraints.

2. The idea that 5e, and its design, doesn't relate to a "younger audience" is belied by the demographics and popularity of 5e. It doesn't appeal to all people at all times, because no product does, but it clearly appeals to a lot of young people. 33% of players are GenZ (1997-2012) according to WoTC in 2023*, and the majority of 5e players never played a prior version.

3. Given the popularity of 5e, and the fact that one of the common complaints we see here (or, at least, a refrain from common complainers?) is that people need to get support for their own playing style within 5e because ... they are unable to find people that will play other games ... I think that it is somewhat bizarre to call 5e "shelfware." It certainly seems to be getting more use than many other TTRPGs.

In summary- you don't have to like 5e (or 5e24). You are welcome to advocate for the stuff you like! But we (and I mean we, all of us) should probably think a little bit harder before we try and confuse our own preferences for what D&D needs to do because it's what the community demands.

All that said ... the community demands that we kill off the bard, because young people hate bards. You can't argue with the truth, amirite?

*I don't think WoTC tracks any younger, but I am welcome to correction.

 

[FrogReaver]

All that said ... the community demands that we kill off the bard, because young people hate bards. You can't argue with the truth, amirite?

But without the Bard which PC would the DM kill first?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But without the Bard which PC would the DM kill first?

The one played by the person who didn't chip in for pizza, obviously!

(I would've said the elf, but we all know from their soulless, dead eyes that killing them would be redundant.)

 

[DarkCrisis]

Anyone have a precis of this OP they would like to share?

I just can't deal with all the Snarfiness of it, but firmly believe in the less is more design concept... as long as it fulfills the goal of the design as well.

Yeah as much as I appreciate the effort a TLDR at the end to summarize those of us with short attention spans.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Snarf Zagyg

I’m curious at how long these masterpieces take you to write?