The latest news about the new #Onednd Players Handbook makes it clear that it will be full of bloated rules additions that will only ruin the premise of #dnd5e game design.
#dnd #ttrpg #osr
Hello,
Based on this article on D&D Beyond, most of the Weapon Mastery properties in the new PHB are more like the example you cited from DCC than just physical maneuvers:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1742-your-guide-to-weapon-mastery-in-the-2024-players
Granted, a couple of them (Push in particular) do seem to be little more than physical maneuvers that anyone should be able to attempt, but it looks most of them are cool bonus things that can happen under specific circumstances.
The question of "system mastery" is a tough one. On the one hand from a pure game play standpoint it's good to reward players as they learn and understand the intricacies of the game system, but clearly some games and some editions of D&D have gone too far.
Take Care,
Lou Prosperi
I'm so not interested in buying this drek.
My main group really loves 5e, and I like running it. I've gotten them to try out Lion & Dragon and ICONS, too.
But I have no desire or interest in switching/updating my 5e Saltmarsh game to this.
Quote from: Brigman on June 21, 2024, 12:59:25 AMI'm so not interested in buying this drek.
My main group really loves 5e, and I like running it. I've gotten them to try out Lion & Dragon and ICONS, too.
But I have no desire or interest in switching/updating my 5e Saltmarsh game to this.
Well, put a few of the earlier books on the table; and tell everyone that you'll run that, but nothing after that. It has to be in your books, that you already own.
Or they can give your preferred alternative system a chance.....
Yeah, they've been good sports about trying new systems, and loved both ICONS and Lion & Dragon. I think after 2 years of play, they're attached to their 5e Saltmarsh characters & that campaign; but I don't plan to overhaul everything just because WoTC decided they want more money and wanna cram an agenda down our throats.
Two games I definitely want to try with them are Gamma World (or Mutant Future) and Baptism of Fire!
Quote from: Brigman on June 21, 2024, 12:11:43 PMYeah, they've been good sports about trying new systems, and loved both ICONS and Lion & Dragon. I think after 2 years of play, they're attached to their 5e Saltmarsh characters & that campaign; but I don't plan to overhaul everything just because WoTC decided they want more money and wanna cram an agenda down our throats.
Two games I definitely want to try with them are Gamma World (or Mutant Future) and Baptism of Fire!
Awesome!
Quote from: Man at Arms on June 21, 2024, 02:54:17 AMQuote from: Brigman on June 21, 2024, 12:59:25 AMI'm so not interested in buying this drek.
My main group really loves 5e, and I like running it. I've gotten them to try out Lion & Dragon and ICONS, too.
But I have no desire or interest in switching/updating my 5e Saltmarsh game to this.
Might I suggest some early editions of Paranoia or Traveller.
Well, put a few of the earlier books on the table; and tell everyone that you'll run that, but nothing after that. It has to be in your books, that you already own.
Or they can give your preferred alternative system a chance.....
Another reviewer said your class bonuses come from the Character Background, not the class.
Can anyone say how this works?
So are their background generator tables? or a section on how to write your 98 page character background?
"Hey Bob, i finally finished my 98 page character background and got 692 Bonuses !!"
The Video title is a bit misleading given you say the size of a book isn't really it's problem.
Personally a core rule book that is over 60 pages I consider a bit bloated, which is to say I don't mind bigger books, but if you can't have a full functional system within the first 60 pages and it's not breezy to read I general don't enjoy it.
an advantage to an OSR, or D&D based system there is of course you can figure out a rules-system very easily by merely discerning how it differs from what you've already played.
My biggest gripe with the playtest stuff they put out, plus the things stated about this book (beyond combat wheelchair nonsense) is player front loaded bloat, it's giving me vietnam style flashbacks to 3.5...
In 5E, fighters do auto attack and the weapon has no meaning. What 5E is implementing is allowing weapons to do certain extra attack action like a trip for a flail for instance.
5E is gay. 6E will be even more so. After 2E, D&D went to total shit.
Quote from: orbitalair on June 25, 2024, 12:30:01 PMAnother reviewer said your class bonuses come from the Character Background, not the class.
Can anyone say how this works?
So are their background generator tables? or a section on how to write your 98 page character background?
"Hey Bob, i finally finished my 98 page character background and got 692 Bonuses !!"
From what I saw its the race bonuses that now come from background. Races no longer give stat bonuses. Because of all the woke bitching and the min/maxer bitching.
Quote from: Omega on July 23, 2024, 05:45:26 AMQuote from: orbitalair on June 25, 2024, 12:30:01 PMAnother reviewer said your class bonuses come from the Character Background, not the class.
Can anyone say how this works?
So are their background generator tables? or a section on how to write your 98 page character background?
"Hey Bob, i finally finished my 98 page character background and got 692 Bonuses !!"
From what I saw its the race bonuses that now come from background. Races no longer give stat bonuses. Because of all the woke bitching and the min/maxer bitching.
They had all that patched up in Tasha's but they threw it out. Now they have just shifted the min maxing from races to backgrounds. They killed some possible archetypes by assigning what stats can be boosted for the various backgrounds. The noble dueling swashbuckler type for example. Noble cannot use their stat adjustments for DEX or CHA. The noble attributes are STR and INT. Give WOTC half a chance and they will fuck up anything, even issues that had already been addressed.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on June 25, 2024, 09:18:48 PMIn 5E, fighters do auto attack and the weapon has no meaning. What 5E is implementing is allowing weapons to do certain extra attack action like a trip for a flail for instance.
I approve of this idea. A bonus aspect for weapons helps to differentiate them outside of damage and possible weapon speed, and gives player more choice and options in combat.
The issue is that it can make combat cumbersome. We saw that in 4th edition with all of the combat powers with tons of conditions and results to track. Weapon effects need to be streamlined and not bog the combat down.
Imagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
LOL, music to my ears that this is shit.
Quote from: Monero on July 23, 2024, 08:57:54 PMImagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
It certainly depends upon one's perspective, and frame of reference.
Lion & Dragon, or Swords & Wizardry make D&D 5E seem like bloated overkill; but Pathfinder 1E, makes D&D 5E seem simple.
Quote from: Monero on July 23, 2024, 08:57:54 PMImagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
Not sure if you watched the video, but I was specifically talking about how it is becoming relatively bloated for the mission statement of the original designers of 5e (including me): to create a game that is extremely friendly to "casual" players.
I prefer to describe it in the more page count positive way of woke at any size!
Quote from: RPGPundit on July 24, 2024, 04:14:11 PMQuote from: Monero on July 23, 2024, 08:57:54 PMImagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
Not sure if you watched the video, but I was specifically talking about how it is becoming relatively bloated for the mission statement of the original designers of 5e (including me): to create a game that is extremely friendly to "casual" players.
wotc's idea of friendly to casual players is to make it friendly to anyone who complains apparently, as long at it fits their agenda.
5e was pretty casual friendly. Its probably the simplest D&D has been to actually learn and play short of BX D&D. 5e Basic and Essentials does a fair job.
Of course wotc can not ever accept anything working and are compelled to fuck it up.
Quote from: RPGPundit on July 24, 2024, 04:14:11 PMQuote from: Monero on July 23, 2024, 08:57:54 PMImagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
Not sure if you watched the video, but I was specifically talking about how it is becoming relatively bloated for the mission statement of the original designers of 5e (including me): to create a game that is extremely friendly to "casual" players.
I think it's funny how as time goes on, your role in the design and development of 5e seems to have grown. At least as you tell it.
You were not one of the "original designers of 5e". You were a consultant, and one among many.
Quote from: LouProsperi on July 25, 2024, 06:06:15 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 24, 2024, 04:14:11 PMQuote from: Monero on July 23, 2024, 08:57:54 PMImagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
Not sure if you watched the video, but I was specifically talking about how it is becoming relatively bloated for the mission statement of the original designers of 5e (including me): to create a game that is extremely friendly to "casual" players.
I think it's funny how as time goes on, your role in the design and development of 5e seems to have grown. At least as you tell it.
You were not one of the "original designers of 5e". You were a consultant, and one among many.
The possibility exists, that he could have been involved in any of the different aspects, of the 2014 D&D 5E PHB. WOTC didn't get specific, when giving credit to contributors.
I'd love to hear one day, what some of his influential ideas were; that made their way into the PHB. WOTC took a dump on their contributors. No harm in Pundit spilling the beans, now.
Quote from: LouProsperi on July 25, 2024, 06:06:15 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 24, 2024, 04:14:11 PMQuote from: Monero on July 23, 2024, 08:57:54 PMImagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
Not sure if you watched the video, but I was specifically talking about how it is becoming relatively bloated for the mission statement of the original designers of 5e (including me): to create a game that is extremely friendly to "casual" players.
I think it's funny how as time goes on, your role in the design and development of 5e seems to have grown. At least as you tell it.
You were not one of the "original designers of 5e". You were a consultant, and one among many.
To my knowledge, the only one to have exchanged literally hundreds of correspondences with Mike Mearls. It was in fact one of the points I emphasized above all: that for 5e to be a long-running evergreen success it had to be the opposite of what Cook & Tweet had done with 'system mastery'. A lot of my consulting (and totally unlike any other consultant that I know of) consisted of picking apart elements of the early rules that were too complicated.
Quote from: RPGPundit on July 26, 2024, 05:33:06 AMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 25, 2024, 06:06:15 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 24, 2024, 04:14:11 PMQuote from: Monero on July 23, 2024, 08:57:54 PMImagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
Not sure if you watched the video, but I was specifically talking about how it is becoming relatively bloated for the mission statement of the original designers of 5e (including me): to create a game that is extremely friendly to "casual" players.
I think it's funny how as time goes on, your role in the design and development of 5e seems to have grown. At least as you tell it.
You were not one of the "original designers of 5e". You were a consultant, and one among many.
To my knowledge, the only one to have exchanged literally hundreds of correspondences with Mike Mearls. It was in fact one of the points I emphasized above all: that for 5e to be a long-running evergreen success it had to be the opposite of what Cook & Tweet had done with 'system mastery'. A lot of my consulting (and totally unlike any other consultant that I know of) consisted of picking apart elements of the early rules that were too complicated.
I don't doubt that you corresponded extensively with Mike Mearls, or that you emphasized a move away from "System Mastery", or that you picked apart parts of the rules from older editions. And the fact that WotC actually listed you by name (I recall they used your real name originally - did they change that to "RPGPundit" at some point?) in the credits of the early printing(s) suggests that your contributions were note worthy. That's cool.
That said, none of that makes you one of the "original designers of 5e". It makes you what you were: a consultant (sometimes also known as a playtester).
Regarding System Mastery, I don't think it's bad thing, but I agree it's less important than making the game approachable to casual players. The real trick, IMO, is designing a system that is approachable to new and casual players but that also rewards System Mastery.
Lou Prosperi
Quote from: Jason Coplen on June 26, 2024, 06:09:16 PM5E is gay. 6E will be even more so. After 2E, D&D went to total shit.
If 5E is gay, 6E is a trans woman trying to enter women's soccer. Its gonna get real cringe, real fast.
Quote from: RPGPundit on July 26, 2024, 05:33:06 AMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 25, 2024, 06:06:15 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 24, 2024, 04:14:11 PMQuote from: Monero on July 23, 2024, 08:57:54 PMImagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
WotC should have went the TSR splat book route first. Then they could resell them again in a comprehensive rules guide. Sales isn't that hard to generate. Plus having your customers buy it on the VTT and then buy it again to get the comprehensive guide, just makes more cash over cash.
Not sure if you watched the video, but I was specifically talking about how it is becoming relatively bloated for the mission statement of the original designers of 5e (including me): to create a game that is extremely friendly to "casual" players.
I think it's funny how as time goes on, your role in the design and development of 5e seems to have grown. At least as you tell it.
You were not one of the "original designers of 5e". You were a consultant, and one among many.
To my knowledge, the only one to have exchanged literally hundreds of correspondences with Mike Mearls. It was in fact one of the points I emphasized above all: that for 5e to be a long-running evergreen success it had to be the opposite of what Cook & Tweet had done with 'system mastery'. A lot of my consulting (and totally unlike any other consultant that I know of) consisted of picking apart elements of the early rules that were too complicated.
Quote from: LouProsperi on July 26, 2024, 10:52:25 AM(I recall they used your real name originally - did they change that to "RPGPundit" at some point?) in the credits of the early printing(s) suggests that your contributions were note worthy. That's cool.
I have the 1st printing of the 5e books and its RPGPundit there.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on July 26, 2024, 02:12:45 PMQuote from: Jason Coplen on June 26, 2024, 06:09:16 PM5E is gay. 6E will be even more so. After 2E, D&D went to total shit.
If 5E is gay, 6E is a trans woman trying to enter women's soccer. Its gonna get real cringe, real fast.
Can it get more cringe than it already has? Don't answer that. They'll think of new and dumber ways.
Quote from: Jason Coplen on July 26, 2024, 02:33:22 PMQuote from: honeydipperdavid on July 26, 2024, 02:12:45 PMQuote from: Jason Coplen on June 26, 2024, 06:09:16 PM5E is gay. 6E will be even more so. After 2E, D&D went to total shit.
If 5E is gay, 6E is a trans woman trying to enter women's soccer. Its gonna get real cringe, real fast.
(https://pluralist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Hannah-Mouncey-2-768x435.jpg)
Can it get more cringe than it already has? Don't answer that. They'll think of new and dumber ways.
Hanah's nickname should be the "Concussion Giver".
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on July 26, 2024, 03:55:48 PMQuote from: Jason Coplen on July 26, 2024, 02:33:22 PMQuote from: honeydipperdavid on July 26, 2024, 02:12:45 PMQuote from: Jason Coplen on June 26, 2024, 06:09:16 PM5E is gay. 6E will be even more so. After 2E, D&D went to total shit.
If 5E is gay, 6E is a trans woman trying to enter women's soccer. Its gonna get real cringe, real fast.
(https://pluralist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Hannah-Mouncey-2-768x435.jpg)
Can it get more cringe than it already has? Don't answer that. They'll think of new and dumber ways.
Hanah's nickname should be the "Concussion Giver".
That's a huge bitch!
Err, I mean dude. That's frightening to view. He's going to be kicking girl ass while morons cheer him on. It's sickening.
Quote from: LouProsperi on July 26, 2024, 10:52:25 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 26, 2024, 05:33:06 AMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 25, 2024, 06:06:15 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 24, 2024, 04:14:11 PMQuote from: Monero on July 23, 2024, 08:57:54 PMImagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
Not sure if you watched the video, but I was specifically talking about how it is becoming relatively bloated for the mission statement of the original designers of 5e (including me): to create a game that is extremely friendly to "casual" players.
I think it's funny how as time goes on, your role in the design and development of 5e seems to have grown. At least as you tell it.
You were not one of the "original designers of 5e". You were a consultant, and one among many.
To my knowledge, the only one to have exchanged literally hundreds of correspondences with Mike Mearls. It was in fact one of the points I emphasized above all: that for 5e to be a long-running evergreen success it had to be the opposite of what Cook & Tweet had done with 'system mastery'. A lot of my consulting (and totally unlike any other consultant that I know of) consisted of picking apart elements of the early rules that were too complicated.
I don't doubt that you corresponded extensively with Mike Mearls, or that you emphasized a move away from "System Mastery", or that you picked apart parts of the rules from older editions. And the fact that WotC actually listed you by name (I recall they used your real name originally - did they change that to "RPGPundit" at some point?) in the credits of the early printing(s) suggests that your contributions were note worthy. That's cool.
That said, none of that makes you one of the "original designers of 5e". It makes you what you were: a consultant (sometimes also known as a playtester).
Regarding System Mastery, I don't think it's bad thing, but I agree it's less important than making the game approachable to casual players. The real trick, IMO, is designing a system that is approachable to new and casual players but that also rewards System Mastery.
Lou Prosperi
No. Wrong.
I was not a playtester. There were hundreds of playtesters, none of which got to talk to Mike Mearls. I did not play the game to test it at all. To my knowledge, no playtesters were paid either; I was, handsomely.
My title was consultant. I probably had more to do with the direction of 5e than most of the WotC D&D employees at the time. I'm sorry that seems to bother you, but facts don't care about your feelings.
Quote from: RPGPundit on July 27, 2024, 02:43:42 AMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 26, 2024, 10:52:25 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 26, 2024, 05:33:06 AMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 25, 2024, 06:06:15 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 24, 2024, 04:14:11 PMQuote from: Monero on July 23, 2024, 08:57:54 PMImagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
Not sure if you watched the video, but I was specifically talking about how it is becoming relatively bloated for the mission statement of the original designers of 5e (including me): to create a game that is extremely friendly to "casual" players.
I think it's funny how as time goes on, your role in the design and development of 5e seems to have grown. At least as you tell it.
You were not one of the "original designers of 5e". You were a consultant, and one among many.
To my knowledge, the only one to have exchanged literally hundreds of correspondences with Mike Mearls. It was in fact one of the points I emphasized above all: that for 5e to be a long-running evergreen success it had to be the opposite of what Cook & Tweet had done with 'system mastery'. A lot of my consulting (and totally unlike any other consultant that I know of) consisted of picking apart elements of the early rules that were too complicated.
I don't doubt that you corresponded extensively with Mike Mearls, or that you emphasized a move away from "System Mastery", or that you picked apart parts of the rules from older editions. And the fact that WotC actually listed you by name (I recall they used your real name originally - did they change that to "RPGPundit" at some point?) in the credits of the early printing(s) suggests that your contributions were note worthy. That's cool.
That said, none of that makes you one of the "original designers of 5e". It makes you what you were: a consultant (sometimes also known as a playtester).
Regarding System Mastery, I don't think it's bad thing, but I agree it's less important than making the game approachable to casual players. The real trick, IMO, is designing a system that is approachable to new and casual players but that also rewards System Mastery.
Lou Prosperi
No. Wrong.
I was not a playtester. There were hundreds of playtesters, none of which got to talk to Mike Mearls. I did not play the game to test it at all. To my knowledge, no playtesters were paid either; I was, handsomely.
My title was consultant. I probably had more to do with the direction of 5e than most of the WotC D&D employees at the time. I'm sorry that seems to bother you, but facts don't care about your feelings.
I didn't mean to suggest you were just a playtester. As I said above the fact that WotC actually listed you by name in the credits of the early printing(s) suggests that your contributions were note worthy.
That said, playtesters are a form of consultant, though they're typically not paid and don't always correspond with the designers. In my time as a playtester (which is how I got started in the industry) I often corresponded with designers and developers about the materials I was testing, but it obviously works differently with different people and projects.
Lou Prosperi
Considering that the new version is called Revised and Expanded Fifth Edition, I just assumed that bloat was part of the deal.
And it makes sense. If the rules are bloated enough to be difficult to run face-to-face, then more players will use the digital tabletop version to help managed the myriad of bonuses and special cases. This is what we call "synergy".
Quote from: LouProsperi on July 29, 2024, 12:29:34 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 27, 2024, 02:43:42 AMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 26, 2024, 10:52:25 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 26, 2024, 05:33:06 AMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 25, 2024, 06:06:15 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 24, 2024, 04:14:11 PMQuote from: Monero on July 23, 2024, 08:57:54 PMImagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
Not sure if you watched the video, but I was specifically talking about how it is becoming relatively bloated for the mission statement of the original designers of 5e (including me): to create a game that is extremely friendly to "casual" players.
I think it's funny how as time goes on, your role in the design and development of 5e seems to have grown. At least as you tell it.
You were not one of the "original designers of 5e". You were a consultant, and one among many.
To my knowledge, the only one to have exchanged literally hundreds of correspondences with Mike Mearls. It was in fact one of the points I emphasized above all: that for 5e to be a long-running evergreen success it had to be the opposite of what Cook & Tweet had done with 'system mastery'. A lot of my consulting (and totally unlike any other consultant that I know of) consisted of picking apart elements of the early rules that were too complicated.
I don't doubt that you corresponded extensively with Mike Mearls, or that you emphasized a move away from "System Mastery", or that you picked apart parts of the rules from older editions. And the fact that WotC actually listed you by name (I recall they used your real name originally - did they change that to "RPGPundit" at some point?) in the credits of the early printing(s) suggests that your contributions were note worthy. That's cool.
That said, none of that makes you one of the "original designers of 5e". It makes you what you were: a consultant (sometimes also known as a playtester).
Regarding System Mastery, I don't think it's bad thing, but I agree it's less important than making the game approachable to casual players. The real trick, IMO, is designing a system that is approachable to new and casual players but that also rewards System Mastery.
Lou Prosperi
No. Wrong.
I was not a playtester. There were hundreds of playtesters, none of which got to talk to Mike Mearls. I did not play the game to test it at all. To my knowledge, no playtesters were paid either; I was, handsomely.
My title was consultant. I probably had more to do with the direction of 5e than most of the WotC D&D employees at the time. I'm sorry that seems to bother you, but facts don't care about your feelings.
I didn't mean to suggest you were just a playtester. As I said above the fact that WotC actually listed you by name in the credits of the early printing(s) suggests that your contributions were note worthy.
That said, playtesters are a form of consultant, though they're typically not paid and don't always correspond with the designers. In my time as a playtester (which is how I got started in the industry) I often corresponded with designers and developers about the materials I was testing, but it obviously works differently with different people and projects.
Lou Prosperi
I'm just, literally curious what your intent here is in trying to diminish Pundit's role in the design of 5e.
Quote from: Orphan81 on July 29, 2024, 04:43:02 PMI'm just, literally curious what your intent here is in trying to diminish Pundit's role in the design of 5e.
Pundit hates communists, so therefore he cannot possibly have done anything important. That's all it is.
Quote from: LouProsperi on July 29, 2024, 12:29:34 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 27, 2024, 02:43:42 AMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 26, 2024, 10:52:25 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 26, 2024, 05:33:06 AMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 25, 2024, 06:06:15 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 24, 2024, 04:14:11 PMQuote from: Monero on July 23, 2024, 08:57:54 PMImagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
Not sure if you watched the video, but I was specifically talking about how it is becoming relatively bloated for the mission statement of the original designers of 5e (including me): to create a game that is extremely friendly to "casual" players.
I think it's funny how as time goes on, your role in the design and development of 5e seems to have grown. At least as you tell it.
You were not one of the "original designers of 5e". You were a consultant, and one among many.
To my knowledge, the only one to have exchanged literally hundreds of correspondences with Mike Mearls. It was in fact one of the points I emphasized above all: that for 5e to be a long-running evergreen success it had to be the opposite of what Cook & Tweet had done with 'system mastery'. A lot of my consulting (and totally unlike any other consultant that I know of) consisted of picking apart elements of the early rules that were too complicated.
I don't doubt that you corresponded extensively with Mike Mearls, or that you emphasized a move away from "System Mastery", or that you picked apart parts of the rules from older editions. And the fact that WotC actually listed you by name (I recall they used your real name originally - did they change that to "RPGPundit" at some point?) in the credits of the early printing(s) suggests that your contributions were note worthy. That's cool.
That said, none of that makes you one of the "original designers of 5e". It makes you what you were: a consultant (sometimes also known as a playtester).
Regarding System Mastery, I don't think it's bad thing, but I agree it's less important than making the game approachable to casual players. The real trick, IMO, is designing a system that is approachable to new and casual players but that also rewards System Mastery.
Lou Prosperi
No. Wrong.
I was not a playtester. There were hundreds of playtesters, none of which got to talk to Mike Mearls. I did not play the game to test it at all. To my knowledge, no playtesters were paid either; I was, handsomely.
My title was consultant. I probably had more to do with the direction of 5e than most of the WotC D&D employees at the time. I'm sorry that seems to bother you, but facts don't care about your feelings.
I didn't mean to suggest you were just a playtester. As I said above the fact that WotC actually listed you by name in the credits of the early printing(s) suggests that your contributions were note worthy.
That said, playtesters are a form of consultant, though they're typically not paid and don't always correspond with the designers. In my time as a playtester (which is how I got started in the industry) I often corresponded with designers and developers about the materials I was testing, but it obviously works differently with different people and projects.
Lou Prosperi
Except that you did:
Quote from: LouProsperi on July 26, 2024, 10:52:25 AMsnip
That said, none of that makes you one of the "original designers of 5e". It makes you what you were: a consultant (sometimes also known as a playtester).
snip
Lou Prosperi
A quote that's right there, above to what you're responding to, the giant brass balls to lie when your words proving you a liar are right there.
Quote from: Orphan81 on July 29, 2024, 04:43:02 PMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 29, 2024, 12:29:34 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 27, 2024, 02:43:42 AMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 26, 2024, 10:52:25 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 26, 2024, 05:33:06 AMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 25, 2024, 06:06:15 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on July 24, 2024, 04:14:11 PMQuote from: Monero on July 23, 2024, 08:57:54 PMImagine thinking 5e is "bloated" with rules. If anything 5e is rules lite which is why I don't like it.
Not sure if you watched the video, but I was specifically talking about how it is becoming relatively bloated for the mission statement of the original designers of 5e (including me): to create a game that is extremely friendly to "casual" players.
I think it's funny how as time goes on, your role in the design and development of 5e seems to have grown. At least as you tell it.
You were not one of the "original designers of 5e". You were a consultant, and one among many.
To my knowledge, the only one to have exchanged literally hundreds of correspondences with Mike Mearls. It was in fact one of the points I emphasized above all: that for 5e to be a long-running evergreen success it had to be the opposite of what Cook & Tweet had done with 'system mastery'. A lot of my consulting (and totally unlike any other consultant that I know of) consisted of picking apart elements of the early rules that were too complicated.
I don't doubt that you corresponded extensively with Mike Mearls, or that you emphasized a move away from "System Mastery", or that you picked apart parts of the rules from older editions. And the fact that WotC actually listed you by name (I recall they used your real name originally - did they change that to "RPGPundit" at some point?) in the credits of the early printing(s) suggests that your contributions were note worthy. That's cool.
That said, none of that makes you one of the "original designers of 5e". It makes you what you were: a consultant (sometimes also known as a playtester).
Regarding System Mastery, I don't think it's bad thing, but I agree it's less important than making the game approachable to casual players. The real trick, IMO, is designing a system that is approachable to new and casual players but that also rewards System Mastery.
Lou Prosperi
No. Wrong.
I was not a playtester. There were hundreds of playtesters, none of which got to talk to Mike Mearls. I did not play the game to test it at all. To my knowledge, no playtesters were paid either; I was, handsomely.
My title was consultant. I probably had more to do with the direction of 5e than most of the WotC D&D employees at the time. I'm sorry that seems to bother you, but facts don't care about your feelings.
I didn't mean to suggest you were just a playtester. As I said above the fact that WotC actually listed you by name in the credits of the early printing(s) suggests that your contributions were note worthy.
That said, playtesters are a form of consultant, though they're typically not paid and don't always correspond with the designers. In my time as a playtester (which is how I got started in the industry) I often corresponded with designers and developers about the materials I was testing, but it obviously works differently with different people and projects.
Lou Prosperi
I'm just, literally curious what your intent here is in trying to diminish Pundit's role in the design of 5e.
My only point is to clarify that, despite his recent claim, he was NOT "one of the original designers of 5e". He just clarified that his "title was Consultant." Beyond that we have only his word that he had any influence at all in the game. Given his generally narcissistic demeanor, I think it's reasonable to doubt some of his claims.
Lou Prosperi
Quote from: Brad on July 29, 2024, 04:48:27 PMQuote from: Orphan81 on July 29, 2024, 04:43:02 PMI'm just, literally curious what your intent here is in trying to diminish Pundit's role in the design of 5e.
Pundit hates communists, so therefore he cannot possibly have done anything important. That's all it is.
EDITED. I crossed a line. Apologies.
Lou Prosperi
Quote from: LouProsperi on July 29, 2024, 06:52:30 PMQuote from: Brad on July 29, 2024, 04:48:27 PMQuote from: Orphan81 on July 29, 2024, 04:43:02 PMI'm just, literally curious what your intent here is in trying to diminish Pundit's role in the design of 5e.
Pundit hates communists, so therefore he cannot possibly have done anything important. That's all it is.
More like he's a malignant narcissist who claimed to be "one of the original designers of 5e" when, in his own words, his "title was consultant". Which is it?
Lou Prosperi
Quote from: LouProsperi on July 29, 2024, 06:52:30 PMQuote from: Brad on July 29, 2024, 04:48:27 PMQuote from: Orphan81 on July 29, 2024, 04:43:02 PMI'm just, literally curious what your intent here is in trying to diminish Pundit's role in the design of 5e.
Pundit hates communists, so therefore he cannot possibly have done anything important. That's all it is.
More like he's a malignant narcissist who claimed to be "one of the original designers of 5e" when, in his own words, his "title was consultant". Which is it?
Lou Prosperi
Except Pundit ISN'T a communist.
Quote from: LouProsperi on July 29, 2024, 06:52:30 PMMore like he's a malignant narcissist who claimed to be "one of the original designers of 5e" when, in his own words, his "title was consultant". Which is it?
Lou Prosperi
Two questions: when did you perform your psychological examination on Pundit and where did you get your doctorate and/or MD from?
Quote from: LouProsperi on July 29, 2024, 06:52:30 PMMore like he's a malignant narcissist...
Says the guy that chases down a dude on his own website to nitpick his commentary.
For your sake, I hope that IMax isn't litigious, because you are infringing on their patent for massive projection...
Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 29, 2024, 12:39:35 PMConsidering that the new version is called Revised and Expanded Fifth Edition, I just assumed that bloat was part of the deal.
No. wotc is lying, as usual.
This is not a "revised" or "expanded" edition. It is a new system that is not compatible with 5e.
I'm a software developer who started in the 80s, with Dilbert in full bloom.
I keep reading PHB as Pointy Haired Boss.
(Good video as usual!)
Quote from: Brad on July 29, 2024, 07:18:02 PMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 29, 2024, 06:52:30 PMMore like he's a malignant narcissist who claimed to be "one of the original designers of 5e" when, in his own words, his "title was consultant". Which is it?
Lou Prosperi
Two questions: when did you perform your psychological examination on Pundit and where did you get your doctorate and/or MD from?
You're right. I crossed a line and sincerely apologize for suggesting that he has a mental disorder. That's nothing to joke about or accuse anyone of.
Lou Prosperi
Quote from: LouProsperi on July 30, 2024, 08:51:03 AMQuote from: Brad on July 29, 2024, 07:18:02 PMQuote from: LouProsperi on July 29, 2024, 06:52:30 PMMore like he's a malignant narcissist who claimed to be "one of the original designers of 5e" when, in his own words, his "title was consultant". Which is it?
Lou Prosperi
Two questions: when did you perform your psychological examination on Pundit and where did you get your doctorate and/or MD from?
You're right. I crossed a line and sincerely apologize for suggesting that he has a mental disorder. That's nothing to joke about or accuse anyone of.
Lou Prosperi
Inform the woke! Lou Prosperi joked about mental illness! He
must be cancelled!
Live by the sword...
The goals of the new edition; are to funnel as many players as possible into the new digital subscription platform, and to increase the overall woke flavor.
New and Improved D&D 5E
Now with 50% More Wokeness!!!
Their customer base can hardly wait, to see their artful depictions of unattractive womenses!!!
Just to clarify once more: I wasn't "not just a playtester". I WASN'T A PLAYTESTER AT ALL.
My job was to pick apart the system on the go, and help to define the aims of the new edition and how to make sure the mechanics fit those aims to make 5e a success. Which, of course, it was. An enormous success, particularly compared to the total shitshow that was Forge-theory-based 4e before it.
Quote from: Jason Coplen on June 26, 2024, 06:09:16 PM5E is gay. 6E will be even more so. After 2E, D&D went to total shit.
LOL. So true.