I stopped buying new books around Tasha's, when I realized this edition is no longer for me.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/11/tasha-and-d-5e-is-for-experts-and.html

But mainstream D&D seems to be going in a strange direction... where people are familiar with dozens of "official" builds but are shy to change the rules. Where everyone knows who Volo is, but the idea of a pointcrawl is a complete mystery, hexcrawls are misunderstood, and lots of railroading is acceptable. Where beholders are common but the ideas on spells are still catching up to DCC RPG.

My objections to Tasha's will probably be even more apparent in 5.5e.

But I like 5e, I like curse os Strahd (and even ToA), and I might be playing a simplified version (closer to Knave than to Tashas) in the future.

Either that or some Moldvay mod.

5e has what I call: crunch gruel. There is allot of crunch, but most of it is dull and insignificant. You can make builds, but the core resolution system is so flabby allot of effort will get you weak results.

Its the worst kind of crunch really.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 30, 2021, 11:47:29 AM
5e has what I call: crunch gruel. There is allot of crunch, but most of it is dull and insignificant. You can make builds, but the core resolution system is so flabby allot of effort will get you weak results.

Its the worst kind of crunch really.

It's not a system designed to pile crunch on.  In fact, it was obviously designed to not pile crunch on.  Then they went and did it anyway. 

I mean, I guess if you are Sylvester stuck in a house with no can opener, can't catch Tweety, and an unnamed mouse has the only can opener, then dropping a grand piano on the can of cat food makes sense, in a desperate, "hangry" sense at least.  This is Sylvester dropping the piano on a plate of prime tuna, with no one else in sight.   

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 30, 2021, 12:00:48 PMIt's not a system designed to pile crunch on.  In fact, it was obviously designed to not pile crunch on.

It was sloppy and rushed and half baked with 6 different design directions, none of which are fullfilled. It was not 'obviously' designed to be anything. It was designed to appease as many people as possible with as many safe choices as possible.

For a 'un-crunchy' system, it has 100 pages of rules, and 100 pages of character creation options (out of 300+ pages). And thats PHB alone (for comparison, SWADE has 200 pages in a larger font for a smaller book type (for a core book type not just a players handbook) to cover multiple genres and a bestiary, and I would say its a medium crunch game).. Its crunch-gruel. You get allot of it, but none of its that good.

I've been playing in a 5e game for months now and haven't needed any books at all.  With the phone app, I don't see why anyone who isn't a dm would buy any of it.  They certainly aren't entertaining to read. 

As for a reason why Hasbro might want to sell WotC- they might be tired of the licensing hell that D&D is tied up in.  That's the big reason why video games and movies have been mostly vaporware. 

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 30, 2021, 12:38:48 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 30, 2021, 12:00:48 PMIt's not a system designed to pile crunch on.  In fact, it was obviously designed to not pile crunch on.

It was sloppy and rushed and half baked with 6 different design directions, none of which are fullfilled. It was not 'obviously' designed to be anything. It was designed to appease as many people as possible with as many safe choices as possible.

For a 'un-crunchy' system, it has 100 pages of rules, and 100 pages of character creation options (out of 300+ pages). And thats PHB alone (for comparison, SWADE has 200 pages in a larger font for a smaller book type (for a core book type not just a players handbook) to cover multiple genres and a bestiary, and I would say its a medium crunch game).. Its crunch-gruel. You get allot of it, but none of its that good.

Not true about the design.  The core design is solid. 

What you are talking about is implementation, which I agree in many respects leaves a lot to be desired.  There's a lot of people on that team with no talent to speak of (either the natural kind or the 99% perspiration kind).  Even the wordy nature of the books is mostly down to that.  Well, and the WotC corporate buzz speak in their writing/editing that would shame an 8th grade journalist.  They are trying to write "conversational reference manuals", and even when that kind of thing manages to still be clear, it's never inspired anyone.

One place where the design does contribute to that problem is the filler path abilities through the 20 levels.  I think that is a case of corporate culture impinging on the design instead of something fundamentally wrong with the design approach--but hey, however it got there, it is bad design.

It's no accident that there is this flip when Mearls arrived.  3E was bad design saved by some quality implementation and writing.  It reflects the abilities of the 3E team.  Mearls is opposite--good designer, uninspired writer.  It really stands out in the third-party 3E stuff he wrote.  The whole team takes on some of that personality. 

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 30, 2021, 12:38:48 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 30, 2021, 12:00:48 PMIt's not a system designed to pile crunch on.  In fact, it was obviously designed to not pile crunch on.

It was sloppy and rushed and half baked with 6 different design directions, none of which are fullfilled. It was not 'obviously' designed to be anything. It was designed to appease as many people as possible with as many safe choices as possible.

For a 'un-crunchy' system, it has 100 pages of rules, and 100 pages of character creation options (out of 300+ pages). And thats PHB alone (for comparison, SWADE has 200 pages in a larger font for a smaller book type (for a core book type not just a players handbook) to cover multiple genres and a bestiary, and I would say its a medium crunch game).. Its crunch-gruel. You get allot of it, but none of its that good.

5e has a good - and uncomplicated - core. Many of those pages are redundancy, repetition, verbosity and useless variation; you could probably make a good 50-page PHB out of the PHB keeping 80% of the options (I'm trying, but it is not easy work). The basic rules, for example, are quite decent.

Of course, they wouldn't be able to charge 30 bucks for a 50-page PHB.

"It was designed to appease as many people as possible with as many safe choices as possible" well, I agree with that; they are out for profit and this is top be expected.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 30, 2021, 02:13:32 PMNot true about the design.  The core design is solid. 

Well if you mean in the sense of 'Neat idea terrible implimentation' I agree. But ideas are cheap and it doesn't accomplish even any one of them to even a above avarage level. There is no part of 5e (sans legendary actions, and thats IT for the hundreds of pages of materials it has) that I would cut out from it to use somewhere else.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 30, 2021, 02:22:40 PM5e has a good - and uncomplicated - core.

I will also disagree. Its core task resolution is mediocre at best. Its uncomplicated in the sense of 'Roll over this with a d20' is uncomplicated, but it gives effectively no guidance and its underpinning maths make for boring characters.
It feels like 10 levels stretched over 20 (unless its spells and spells do interesting things as usual, at least relative to everybody else).

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 30, 2021, 02:55:11 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 30, 2021, 02:13:32 PMNot true about the design.  The core design is solid. 

Well if you mean in the sense of 'Neat idea terrible implimentation' I agree. But ideas are cheap and it doesn't accomplish even any one of them to even a above avarage level. There is no part of 5e (sans legendary actions, and thats IT for the hundreds of pages of materials it has) that I would cut out from it to use somewhere else.

Well I have at list a few:

- Advantage/disadvantage.
- Proficiency bonus instead of skill points.
- Lair actions (in addition to legendary actions)
- Maybe bardic inspiration etc. or some other class stuff.

(Sorry for the insistence, I just find this an interesting subject)

Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 30, 2021, 03:00:08 PM
- Advantage/disadvantage.

Mediocre. And its used for everything so its the one string to its bow. Yeah, it may prevent stacking tons of buffs, but it also makes so many situations feel the same. It needed more depth, even if you wanted to keep it simple. Something akin to a -6/-3/+3/+6 system

Quote- Proficiency bonus instead of skill points.

Not its idea, (4e did it first, and Star Wars Saga before that and im sure something else before then) and the execution is also mediocre. Every character feels the same because its around 20% difference stretched across 20 friggin levels. Some classes might have benefits that magnify this to a whopping ~40%, but again thats by level 20.

To clarify, im not asking for the numbers to explode and be in the 40s. SWN (Revised) has a scale of like 0-4 for skills, but it makes that difference feel FAR more meaningful.

Quote- Lair actions (in addition to legendary actions)

Falls under legendary actions to me. But yes, are good ideas executed well (for people that like boss fights which I do).

Quote- Maybe bardic inspiration etc. or some other class stuff.

Mediocre because of the core task resolution system.

Quote(Sorry for the insistence, I just find this an interesting subject)

I love debate, so I love it when people discuss instead of flip out. No problem! 

Quote from: Hakdov on September 30, 2021, 01:42:28 PM
As for a reason why Hasbro might want to sell WotC- they might be tired of the licensing hell that D&D is tied up in.  That's the big reason why video games and movies have been mostly vaporware.

Explain this to me, please?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 30, 2021, 03:48:57 PM

Quote from: Hakdov on September 30, 2021, 01:42:28 PM
As for a reason why Hasbro might want to sell WotC- they might be tired of the licensing hell that D&D is tied up in.  That's the big reason why video games and movies have been mostly vaporware.

Explain this to me, please?

I can venture a guess. Remember that various authors have had their names attached to various properties within the greater D&D game. I bet it's similar to the problem that faced Disney after they bought the Star Wars IP.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 30, 2021, 11:47:29 AM
5e has what I call: crunch gruel. There is allot of crunch, but most of it is dull and insignificant. You can make builds, but the core resolution system is so flabby allot of effort will get you weak results.
...

I noticed this as well when my group ran the 5e waterdeep AP.

It is a very solid mid-crunch game, where you only really make one choice for your PCs advancement at third level. And you are pretty much just a passenger along for the level up ride from then on...

Any actual cool "class abilities" *cough*FEATs*cough* that would be really useful at the lower levels you don't typically get until levels 7+, of course by then  you are fighting level appropriate enemies, and your new hotness abilities just allow you to keep pace. The increase in PC power level is largely an illusion because everything just keeps pace with you.

To say nothing of their treasure economy. You go from being barely able to afford a healing potion, to looking down at your sheet wondering why your PC is not retiring form adventuring, and living the good life by level 6...

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 30, 2021, 02:55:11 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 30, 2021, 02:13:32 PMNot true about the design.  The core design is solid. 

Well if you mean in the sense of 'Neat idea terrible implimentation' I agree. But ideas are cheap and it doesn't accomplish even any one of them to even a above avarage level. There is no part of 5e (sans legendary actions, and thats IT for the hundreds of pages of materials it has) that I would cut out from it to use somewhere else.

You are excluding the middle here.  "Design" is not "idea".  It is also not the implementation.  There is a great deal of work that goes into getting the basic model in place, which falls under design but is not an actual game until you put some meat on the bones.  Nor is design automatically "mechanic" that can be lifted elsewhere, though it could be in some cases.

Eric is correct.  There could be a much more streamlined implementation of the 5E design that would rival the Basic/Expert set in cohesion (especially if it had the luxury of limiting it to the equivalent level ranges) while providing more useful features.   

Advantage/Disadvantage is good design. You may not like how it works in theory or in practice, never mind how that informs the 5E space, but it is an example of well-thought, considered design that does exactly what it is meant to do.  For that particular point, I'd say it is good design where they fell in love with it so much that they used it in a few places where probably they should not have, but that's personal preference too. 

The many design choices that led to multi-classing being "possible but practically never needed" is brilliant design.  Again, falls flat in some practical ways due to choices made in implementation--and in others because they didn't push the implementation far enough, but very good design.  (The marketing weasel decisions to promise all the classes people expected to make up for 4E also compromised the design in particularly bad ways and put their class implementation in a bind that the lack of talent couldn't overcome.  This is why the fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric classes are mostly solid but everything else is all over the place in quality.)

The mathematical design is largely on point.  It doesn't match my preferences in a game, but it does a very good job of setting the game up to work as intended.

There is no such thing as talking about good or bad design without considering the intent of the design.  It you want to say that their intent was ill chosen, that's a separate (and also interesting) argument.

Edit: Will also say in response to the intervening discussion that I don't consider who did it first a question of good or bad design.  That's innovation.  5E is not innovative much, if any.  Good design usually isn't, because it is nearly always something that's been tried and botched previously.  There's no way WotC designs 5E as well as they did without the 3E/3.5/4E/Essentials experiments.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 30, 2021, 03:53:19 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 30, 2021, 03:48:57 PM

Quote from: Hakdov on September 30, 2021, 01:42:28 PM
As for a reason why Hasbro might want to sell WotC- they might be tired of the licensing hell that D&D is tied up in.  That's the big reason why video games and movies have been mostly vaporware.

Explain this to me, please?

I can venture a guess. Remember that various authors have had their names attached to various properties within the greater D&D game. I bet it's similar to the problem that faced Disney after they bought the Star Wars IP.

I'd think that Hasbro would be far more likely to let the IP rot rather than give it up. Corpos like to hang on to IP for as long as possible even if they have no intention of using it.