# It goes to show you can't please everbody!



## Morrus (Nov 7, 2022)

I found this quite amusing--two threads which appeared right next to each other when I looked. Minigiant wants more armors, while Horwath wants fewer.


----------



## aco175 (Nov 7, 2022)

The sad thing is that I may have argued two different opinions in each thread.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 7, 2022)

That’s why we need an advanced and basic line of official D&D products.


----------



## Olrox17 (Nov 7, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> That’s why we need an advanced and basic line of official D&D products.



Yes. Or actual modularity, which was the original design intent for 5e.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 7, 2022)

Morrus said:


> I found this quite amusing--two threads which appeared right next to each other when I looked. Minigiant wants more armors, while Horwath wants fewer.
> 
> View attachment 266095



if there was EVER a picture to describe the D&D fanbase this is it.  All of enworld can be summed up with it.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 7, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> Yes. Or actual modularity, which was the original design intent for 5e.



Now's not the time to bring up WotC's track record of lying to fans during edition changes.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 7, 2022)

Morrus said:


> I found this quite amusing--two threads which appeared right next to each other when I looked. Minigiant wants more armors, while Horwath wants fewer.
> 
> View attachment 266095



I wonder if one thread was created in reaction to the other...or if it was coincidence?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Nov 7, 2022)

I had that same thought when I noticed those two threads!

EDIT: I honestly think that they're BOTH right. A mechanically simple table that outlines the standard AC benefits with a longer list of possible names would suit me. I'd go one further and make a list of optional "feat-like" powers that each named armour type could have, if you have a "masterwork" version (something to spend your $ on!)


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 7, 2022)

I mean to be fair, the simplification isn't really asking for fewer armors - just more equity in how armor class bonuses are distributed. 


aco175 said:


> The sad thing is that I may have argued two different opinions in each thread.



I can safely say I said Horwath had a bad idea and Minigiant had a good idea 

I still don't even understand Horwath's argument. He's saying players already only have an illusion of choice and there should just be three fixed armors and you describe them how you want. When people point out there are in fact meaningful variations among the existing armors...he kinda handwaves that. 

Minigiant is on to something and I think there should be even more meaningful variants aside from AC, price, weight, steath and movement. Let's get some resistances and vulnerabilities in there. Lets get some armor which is better and worse to cast spells in. Lets get bucklers and helmets. Juice this concept up even more!


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 7, 2022)

To be fair Morrus, you can do my idea AND @Horwath's idea at the same time.

You can have more armors and simplified armors. That's basically 4e armor. Only 6 actual types of armor.  But each type has 3-4 different versions (banded mail, chanimail, and braidmail are all the same AC).

It just wont happen before One D&D will be backward compatible and past armor values would have to be about the same.


----------



## Alzrius (Nov 8, 2022)

My inner pedant compels me to point out that "everybody" is misspelled in the thread title.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 8, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> Yes. Or actual modularity, which was the original design intent for 5e.



Exactly.

You can definitely have both a simplified and a detailed armor system in the same game. But you could also have a single "system" with different armor options, some simple and some complex.

But 5e is already like that in many things, it's just that people aren't even looking and are only interested in asking for change for the sake of change. Take Fighting Styles for example: it's a single "system" (as simple as it can be: Fighting Styles are one-time abilities of choice at a specific level of specific classes) and you get both extremely simple Fighting Styles like Archery and more complex ones like Protection. You don't need to change the system, but if you just design MORE Fighting Style to choose from (such as higher complexity options for archers and lower complexity options for protectors) you can multiply the amount of satisfied players tenfold.

But no, the hobby must be about changing rules all the time to never really change anything.


----------



## W'rkncacnter (Nov 8, 2022)

i think they were trying to suggest something about the duality of man, the jungian thing.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Nov 8, 2022)

I actually want both. I want both more armors (or more ways to customize/differentiate armors like crafting materials), but also want simplified armors (I don't think we need unique gold, weight, and strength/stealth differences between armors of the same type). 

Or you can just have two different modular systems that please both groups of people.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Nov 8, 2022)

But can't you have the best of both worlds with DM EMPOWERMENT?!?!?


----------



## TerraDave (Nov 8, 2022)

Also saw that. 

Though it may be better that you pointed it out.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 8, 2022)

This is why we need players to not be so desperate to play "Official Dungeons & Dragons Products".  So they can find all the bells and whistles they want through 3rd Party designers and bring those things into their D&D games to give them exactly what they want-- and not get so bothered that Wizards of the Coast didn't make it.  Especially considering even when WotC does make stuff people get all pissed off about how they did it.

To me, that's the thing I ultimately find amusing-- players who constantly want WotC to create all these "official" rules and things, but then hate the results and constantly complain about them when they do.  _See:_  all the Dragonlance threads.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> This is why we need players to not be so desperate to play "Official Dungeons & Dragons Products".  So they can find all the bells and whistles they want through 3rd Party designers and bring those things into their D&D games



i hear/read this all the time and can't imagine why you would want to BOTH stay with D&D AND buy other company stuff... Rifts Torg deadlands Mutantsandmasterminds vampire werewolf and GURPS don't tell me to stay with the game AND buy 3rd party


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Nov 8, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> To me, that's the thing I ultimately find amusing-- players who constantly want WotC to create all these "official" rules and things, but then hate the results and constantly complain about them when they do.  _See:_  all the Dragonlance threads.




Fans are only happy when it rains
They're only happy when it's complicated
And though I know you can't appreciate it
Real fans are only happy when it rains
You know they love it when the news is bad
And you're only a real fan when you get real mad
Fans are only happy when it rains

Write your misery down
Write your misery down in a thread
Write  your misery down
Write your misery down in a thread

Fans are only happy when it rains
They feel good when things are going wrong
So they can say they were right all along
They're only happy when it rains!

Write your misery down
Write your misery down in a thread
Write your misery down
Write your misery down in a thread


----------



## Morrus (Nov 8, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> i hear/read this all the time and can't imagine why you would want to BOTH stay with D&D AND buy other company stuff... Rifts Torg deadlands Mutantsandmasterminds vampire werewolf and GURPS don't tell me to stay with the game AND buy 3rd party



This is a pretty offensive thing to say to all the 3PP designers on this forum and elsewhere. Sure, choose what you want to buy, but tearing down 3PPs isn't a good look.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2022)

Morrus said:


> This is a pretty offensive thing to say to all the 3PP designers on this forum and elsewhere. Sure, choose what you want to buy, but tearing down 3PPs isn't a good look.



I don't know what is offensive. I have not said those 3pp are not good (I hear lots of good about some of them) I am saying that when people CONSTANTLY use "You should buy 3pp" as the hammer when people say "I would like to see this changed" (Especially now mid playtest of updated rules, and I still see it in playtest threads) when no other company that I know of gets the same. 

I don't dislike Mongoose, or Enworld publishing, I just don't see why EVERY discussion of change to WotC D&D needs to be hit with "Just spend your money elsewhere".

I DO spend my money else where... on COMPLETLY different games. Long ago me and my group stopped spending on player facing 3pp (and that is just the way we do things) we still house rule, we still glance at free stuff... but if we spend time and money on a non D&D product it is 80-90% of the time not d20 at all.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Nov 8, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't know what is offensive. I have not said those 3pp are not good (I hear lots of good about some of them) I am saying that when people CONSTANTLY use "You should buy 3pp" as the hammer when people say "I would like to see this changed" (Especially now mid playtest of updated rules, and I still see it in playtest threads) *when no other company that I know of gets the same.*




Well, that's because WoTC is not every other company, and D&D is not every other game.

It's sort of like saying, "Hey, I don't understand why Al's Auto Shop doesn't use an Irish subsidiary for offshoring its IP ... Apple does it!" 

D&D, as a gaming ecosystem, is able to support 3PP. Other games ... for the most part ... do not have that luxury. In fact, if WoTC were to crowd out the 3PP, I am guessing that most people would view it as rather unfair. 

Heck, a lot of great designers in the TTRPG space make a living (or get their start) designing 3PP for D&D. So what's unfair is for people to demand that WoTC cut off a viable pipeline for so many creatives because ... I don't know? What is the reason?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 8, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't know what is offensive. I have not said those 3pp are not good (I hear lots of good about some of them) I am saying that when people CONSTANTLY use "You should buy 3pp" as the hammer when people say "I would like to see this changed" (Especially now mid playtest of updated rules, and I still see it in playtest threads) when no other company that I know of gets the same.
> 
> I don't dislike Mongoose, or Enworld publishing, I just don't see why EVERY discussion of change to WotC D&D needs to be hit with "Just spend your money elsewhere".



The situation is, in fact, the exact opposite of that. I think that the fact that you see this as a "hammer" and use terms like "needs to be hit with" is problematic in an environment where 3PPs are genuinely struggling to get recognition (or even acknowledgment) in the face of those who refuse to use non "official" material. As I said, you buy what you want, but please leave the 3PPs alone, and don't act like they're somehow oppressing you.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2022)

Morrus said:


> The situation is, in fact, the exact opposite of that. I think that the fact that you see this as a "hammer" and use terms like "needs to be hit with" is problematic in an environment where 3PPs are genuinely struggling to get recognition (or even acknowledgment) in the face of those who refuse to use non "official" material. As I said, you buy what you want, but please leave the 3PPs alone, and don't act like they're somehow oppressing you.



Edit: Redacted... can we get back to the point of the thread and not argue about 3pp?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Well, that's because WoTC is not every other company, and D&D is not every other game.




Edit: Redacted... can we get back to the point of the thread and not argue about 3pp?


----------



## darjr (Nov 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Now's not the time to bring up WotC's track record of lying to fans during edition changes.



Noted you said this.


----------



## MoonSong (Nov 8, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> if there was EVER a picture to describe the D&D fanbase this is it.  All of enworld can be summed up with it.



You say it as if it was a bad thing. I find fascinating and amazing how unique everybody in the community is. How I've been on diametrically opposite sides of the discussion with somebody just to go on and side with that same poster on another thread. The diversity and uniqueness of everybody makes it cooler and better to game with others.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2022)

MoonSong said:


> You say it as if it was a bad thing. I find fascinating and amazing how unique everybody in the community is. How I've been on diametrically opposite sides of the discussion with somebody just to go on and side with that same poster on another thread. The diversity and uniqueness of everybody makes it cooler and better to game with others.



I say it as a mixed blessing...  

We all have different view points and that can lead to some GREAT shareing of ideas and concepts. 
We all take offence at different things (as you can see up thread when I tried to share MY thoughts and by accident insulted the guy that owns the site)

The thesis is that we are a mixed bag, and in being a mixed bag we get into arguments all the time, how ever when they are good spirited friendly ones we bring more to the table then when they turn personal...


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 8, 2022)

I agree with GM. I’m tired of being told that 3pp is the answer to fixing a busted system. I don’t want to buy six extra books to make my core 5E books work at a basic level. They should work on their own. Complete game in one set and all that. I want WotC to put out a good, functional, complete game. I get that there’s an industry popped up around WotC’s failings, and good for the 3pp for doing what they can to bandaid 5E, there’s no fault or blame directed at them, the problem is entirely WotC. But let’s stop pretending that there’s no problems with 5E.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 8, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> To be fair Morrus, you can do my idea AND @Horwath's idea at the same time.
> 
> You can have more armors and simplified armors. That's basically 4e armor. Only 6 actual types of armor.  But each type has 3-4 different versions (banded mail, chanimail, and braidmail are all the same AC).
> 
> It just wont happen before One D&D will be backward compatible and past armor values would have to be about the same.



Oh, I don't know.  Level Up is backwards compatible and has lots of options.  Maybe 6e can do something with materials?


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 8, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> This is why we need players to not be so desperate to play "Official Dungeons & Dragons Products".  So they can find all the bells and whistles they want through 3rd Party designers and bring those things into their D&D games to give them exactly what they want-- and not get so bothered that Wizards of the Coast didn't make it.  Especially considering even when WotC does make stuff people get all pissed off about how they did it.
> 
> To me, that's the thing I ultimately find amusing-- players who constantly want WotC to create all these "official" rules and things, but then hate the results and constantly complain about them when they do.  _See:_  all the Dragonlance threads.



The only official WotC things I've ever really cared about are settings.  Unfortunately, I care about those too much...


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 8, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I agree with GM. I’m tired of being told that 3pp is the answer to fixing a busted system. I don’t want to buy six extra books to make my core 5E books work at a basic level. They should work on their own. Complete game in one set and all that. I want WotC to put out a good, functional, complete game. I get that there’s an industry popped up around WotC’s failings, and good for the 3pp for doing what they can to bandaid 5E, there’s no fault or blame directed at them, the problem is entirely WotC. But let’s stop pretending that there’s no problems with 5E.



I actually treat WotC as 3pp at this point.  My base game is Level Up, and if there's something in WotC that I like, I adapt it or use it straight as appropriate.

The only issue, as I've mentioned, is settings.  WotC's take on their own IP tends to infect 3pp on the same subject.


----------



## practicalm (Nov 8, 2022)

Where do I sign up to bring back weapon speed modifiers?
Such a great and crazy table.  
Or go full Rolemaster and a weapon chart for each weapon indexing the target armor type.

(I know someone is going to say it so, I'm beating them to the punch.  You never go full Rolemaster.)


----------



## leonardozg (Nov 8, 2022)

Morrus said:


> I found this quite amusing--two threads which appeared right next to each other when I looked. Minigiant wants more armors, while Horwath wants fewer.
> 
> View attachment 266095



It's not getting better.


----------



## phuong (Nov 9, 2022)

Its almost like people get a little bored if their games aren't constantly evolving.  RIP Pubg.


----------



## MockingBird (Nov 9, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I agree with GM. I’m tired of being told that 3pp is the answer to fixing a busted system. I don’t want to buy six extra books to make my core 5E books work at a basic level. They should work on their own. Complete game in one set and all that. I want WotC to put out a good, functional, complete game. I get that there’s an industry popped up around WotC’s failings, and good for the 3pp for doing what they can to bandaid 5E, there’s no fault or blame directed at them, the problem is entirely WotC. But let’s stop pretending that there’s no problems with 5E.



To some of us 5e works just fine. I wouldn't call it "busted". For me at least the game works right out of the box.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 9, 2022)

MockingBird said:


> To some of us 5e works just fine. I wouldn't call it "busted". For me at least the game works right out of the box.



Lots of things can be said to "work"


Spoiler: Fine is more complicated


----------



## Thomas Shey (Nov 9, 2022)

I'm not even sure its true.  Green Ronin has been perfectly happy for people to produce 3PP M&M support materials, for example.  I don't notice Pinnacle being exactly hostile to 3PP Savage Worlds material, either.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Nov 9, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't know what is offensive. I have not said those 3pp are not good (I hear lots of good about some of them) I am saying that when people CONSTANTLY use "You should buy 3pp" as the hammer when people say "I would like to see this changed" (Especially now mid playtest of updated rules, and I still see it in playtest threads) when no other company that I know of gets the same.
> 
> I don't dislike Mongoose, or Enworld publishing, I just don't see why EVERY discussion of change to WotC D&D needs to be hit with "Just spend your money elsewhere".
> 
> I DO spend my money else where... on COMPLETLY different games. Long ago me and my group stopped spending on player facing 3pp (and that is just the way we do things) we still house rule, we still glance at free stuff... but if we spend time and money on a non D&D product it is 80-90% of the time not d20 at all.




While I'm not a fan of it as an ongoing excuse for writing off system problems, sometimes you like almost everything about a system but one area, and you'd rather patch the one area than go to a whole new system.  And this is from someone who's not at all allergic to hop systems.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 9, 2022)

Morrus said:


> I found this quite amusing--two threads which appeared right next to each other when I looked. Minigiant wants more armors, while Horwath wants fewer.
> 
> View attachment 266095



I've not read the threads - but I'm in favour of both.

I've yet to see anyone wear padded, leather, ringmail, or splint and hide is almost redundant. All of these could IME easily be removed with no loss
This doesn't prevent me adding armours - in particular medium and light armour that don't add dex bonuses so we don't have almost every PC with Dex 14+


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Nov 10, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> That’s why we need an advanced and basic line of official D&D products.



Please!

At this point it's clear that the things different groups want are so far apart that it's not really compatible.


----------



## grimslade (Nov 10, 2022)

Armor Class is such an abstraction, I don't see what additional armors bring to the table. If we changed from armor granting AC bonus to a DR system, I could see more granularity, but mostly more armor would be fluff rather than mechanic.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Nov 11, 2022)

grimslade said:


> Armor Class is such an abstraction, I don't see what additional armors bring to the table. If we changed from armor granting AC bonus to a DR system, I could see more granularity, but mostly more armor would be fluff rather than mechanic.




The problem with using DR in D&D is there's so much range in damage that it would mean as you start dealing with the upper end, the armor effect would become progressively more trivial, and damage absorption armor tends to work poorly with level-elevating hit points as the people who did the Dragon Age game demonstrated all too well above the first six levels.


----------



## occam (Nov 11, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I agree with GM. I’m tired of being told that 3pp is the answer to fixing a busted system. I don’t want to buy six extra books to make my core 5E books work at a basic level. They should work on their own. Complete game in one set and all that. I want WotC to put out a good, functional, complete game. I get that there’s an industry popped up around WotC’s failings, and good for the 3pp for doing what they can to bandaid 5E, there’s no fault or blame directed at them, the problem is entirely WotC. But let’s stop pretending that there’s no problems with 5E.



What's a problem for you, however, is just peachy for someone else, and vice versa. Which this thread highlights; WotC literally cannot please everyone on every point.

But has WotC produced "a good, functional, complete game" which "works at a basic level"? Millions of D&D players seem to think so.


----------



## MNblockhead (Nov 11, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> My inner pedant compels me to point out that "everybody" is misspelled in the thread title.



My outer pedant compels me to point out that it isn't your "inner" pedant if you are compelled to post your pedantry publicly.  ;-)


----------



## grimslade (Nov 11, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> The problem with using DR in D&D is there's so much range in damage that it would mean as you start dealing with the upper end, the armor effect would become progressively more trivial, and damage absorption armor tends to work poorly with level-elevating hit points as the people who did the Dragon Age game demonstrated all too well above the first six levels.



I agree that DR is problematic in D&D. I am simply saying that more armor types would be fluff rather than mechanics. A DR system may require more or less armor. Check out Mr. Rhexx idea for armor. Fewer types of armor would strip away fluff and flavor for simplifying something that is already abstract. If you want to really strip down D&D armor is one of the least of your worries, the bulk of the PHB is spell description.


----------



## Lojaan (Nov 11, 2022)

Y


grimslade said:


> I agree that DR is problematic in D&D. I am simply saying that more armor types would be fluff rather than mechanics. A DR system may require more or less armor. Check out Mr. Rhexx idea for armor. Fewer types of armor would strip away fluff and flavor for simplifying something that is already abstract. If you want to really strip down D&D armor is one of the least of your worries, the bulk of the PHB is spell description.



Yeeeeesssssssss! Get rid of spell bloat!


----------



## Thomas Shey (Nov 11, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> Y
> 
> Yeeeeesssssssss! Get rid of spell bloat!




Good luck with that.  Ten million special cases called spells has been a thing in D&D from the start, and it hasn't exactly decreased over time.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Nov 11, 2022)

I think it could be interesting to have the heavier armors give special THP (called them armor points, to avoid be able to have both) at the start of battle, recovering at the end of the encounter if you have Mending or the relevant Tool proficiency. So its not an always on damage mitigation, but having a thick cumbersome plate on your back helps you stand against your foes a little longer than a lightly armored rogue of the same AC.

You could even base those number of Armor Points on proficiency bonus, something like 3 AP per prof. bonus for chainmail, for example.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 11, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I agree with GM. I’m tired of being told that 3pp is the answer to fixing a busted system. I don’t want to buy six extra books to make my core 5E books work at a basic level. They should work on their own. Complete game in one set and all that. I want WotC to put out a good, functional, complete game. I get that there’s an industry popped up around WotC’s failings, and good for the 3pp for doing what they can to bandaid 5E, there’s no fault or blame directed at them, the problem is entirely WotC. But let’s stop pretending that there’s no problems with 5E.



"I'd like to do more with this aspect of the existing system" is what most third party products are about. Not that the existing system is busted and non-functional without houserules or a third party product, but that it expands on existing good functional stuff in a different direction. I don't see anyone pretending there is no room for improvement in 5e. But I do see a lot of comments like yours - acting like any improvement that can be made is proof the existing product was non-functional and busted. The darn game has run successfully for a decade and an awful lot of the people playing it use essentially no houserules or third party products and still report the system is working just fine for them. You liking some other stuff that isn't currently in the system is fine - but the claims it's a broken non-functional system and anyone who disagrees is pretending is a bridge too far.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Nov 11, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> "I'd like to do more with this aspect of the existing system" is what most third party products are about. Not that the existing system is busted and non-functional without houserules or a third party product, but that it expands on existing good functional stuff in a different direction. I don't see anyone pretending there is no room for improvement in 5e. But I do see a lot of comments like yours - acting like any improvement that can be made is proof the existing product was non-functional and busted. The darn game has run successfully for a decade and an awful lot of the people playing it use essentially no houserules or third party products and still report the system is working just fine for them. You liking some other stuff that isn't currently in the system is fine - but the claims it's a broken non-functional system and anyone who disagrees is pretending is a bridge too far.




Heck, I'm not a fan of D&D-sphere games in general or 5e in particular, but I'd never claim it was dysfunctional.  That would require a conspiracy-theory level explanation for its success (even though I think a lot of that comes from non-system based reasons, you've got to have at least a basically functional system for that to work).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Nov 11, 2022)

occam said:


> What's a problem for you, however, is just peachy for someone else, and vice versa. Which this thread highlights; WotC literally cannot please everyone on every point.
> 
> But has WotC produced "a good, functional, complete game" which "works at a basic level"? Millions of D&D players seem to think so.



What WotC have produced is the _least bad_ version of D&D. They've knocked off all the edges that people have an aversion to and produced something that is _good enough_ that no one truly dislikes it and especially no one truly dislikes it on first glance. On the other hand in order to do this it isn't that great for any table. B/X, 1e, 4e, and even 3.X are all great at what they do - but if you want to do something vastly different then the system will fight you and the same sharp edges that make those games cut the right things will cut you. 5e on the other hand only has as an absolute strength how easy it is for beginners to make interesting and evocative characters. 

Is it a functional system that does what it set out to? Yes. Is it ever my first choice to run? Possibly when gathering a new group together as a meeting in the middle point.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Nov 11, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I’m tired of being told that 3pp is the answer to fixing a busted system.




Except that if WotC were to put you in charge, and you could change D&D to be exactly what you wanted, the system would then be broken (sorry, cannot bring myself to say "busted") for a whole lot of other people.  What would your advice, as lead designer, be for them?  Suck it up?  Play a different system?  Or go 3PP?


----------



## Olrox17 (Nov 12, 2022)

I do agree that 5e has some broken/busted parts, places where the game's math is just flawed and tends to break. 
The worst offender I can think of is how the saving throw system fails the scale at higher levels, but there are plenty of smaller issues littering the game (lame rangers/sorcerers, barely functional subclasses, OP game elements, etc).
If WotC fails to address those glaring issues in their "5.5" update, I would be extremely disappointed with them.

Extra content is another story. If I feel like, for example, 5e's armor selection is too simplistic, or there aren't enough battlemaster's maneuvers, or (god forbid) enough spells, I'm totally ok with 3PP filling those blanks. Or official supplements, even with 5e's slower release schedule.

WotC _should_ fix their game, it indeed has some mechanical problems that we should stop pretending it doesn't have, but that doesn't mean 3PP aren't great to have around.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 12, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I agree with GM. I’m tired of being told that 3pp is the answer to fixing a busted system.



It's not. It's a way to _expand on_ and _support_ an existing system. No 3PP sees themselves as being in business of 'fixing a busted system'.

And if you're tired of hearing about it, I guess adopt a game system with a model which doesn't - by design - not only allow third parties to do that, but actively encourages and supports it through the provision of licenses and platforms. Like it or not, that's D&D, and 3PPs being deliberately part of the ecosystem are here to stay.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 12, 2022)

Morrus said:


> It's not. It's a way to _expand on_ and _support_ an existing system. No 3PP sees themselves as being in business of 'fixing a busted system'.



To be fair, sometimes its a way to replace an existing system.  Even if it can be used with it.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Nov 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> To be fair, sometimes its a way to replace an existing system.  Even if it can be used with it.




Though often that's less "the extent system doesn't work" than "the extent system works in a way some people don't find appealing".  Various alternate magic systems for D&D or Pathfinder over the years land in this category.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 12, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Though often that's less "the extent system doesn't work" than "the extent system works in a way some people don't find appealing".  Various alternate magic systems for D&D or Pathfinder over the years land in this category.



I'm actually talking about wholesale replacement games using similar rules, like Level Up or Pathfinder.  Neither was primarily designed as a supplement, even if it was designed to be used that way if desired.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Nov 12, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm actually talking about wholesale replacement games using similar rules, like Level Up or Pathfinder.  Neither was primarily designed as a supplement, even if it was designed to be used that way if desired.



Though with PF1e, using it as a supplement would have been largely pointless; most of the changes were widely integrated, and by the time you'd have pulled them out and integrated them into D&D 3.5--you'd have had PF1e for the most part.


----------



## Clint_L (Nov 13, 2022)

What I am learning on this forum is that there is no point, however obvious, that folks won't debate. I like debate; it's why I'm here. But the pedantry can get exhausting.


----------



## MGibster (Nov 13, 2022)

In _Cyberpunk 2020, _published in 1991, there were a myriad of brand name firearms you could purchase.   Your character might buy a cheap piece of junk pistol like the Dai Lung Cybermag 15 or spend a few more eddies for a Sternmeyer Type 35 which was more reliable.  In _Cyberpunk Red, _you just pick the pistol type (medium, heavy, or very heavy) and decide whether it's poor, standard, or of excellent quality.  The book gives you some brand names to associate with each quality level, but it's not the same.  It's not as fun.  

On the flip side, you tended to see PCs selecte the same weapons.  They weren't getting a POS Dai Lung they were purchasing a reliable Sternmeyer instead.  And D&D is kind of like that, there are all sorts of weapons and armor you don't see players picking all that often for a variety of reasons.  They'll typically pick the ones that give them the most bang for the buck.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Nov 13, 2022)

MGibster said:


> In _Cyberpunk 2020, _published in 1991, there were a myriad of brand name firearms you could purchase.   Your character might buy a cheap piece of junk pistol like the Dai Lung Cybermag 15 or spend a few more eddies for a Sternmeyer Type 35 which was more reliable.  In _Cyberpunk Red, _you just pick the pistol type (medium, heavy, or very heavy) and decide whether it's poor, standard, or of excellent quality.  The book gives you some brand names to associate with each quality level, but it's not the same.  It's not as fun.
> 
> On the flip side, you tended to see PCs selecte the same weapons.  They weren't getting a POS Dai Lung they were purchasing a reliable Sternmeyer instead.  And D&D is kind of like that, there are all sorts of weapons and armor you don't see players picking all that often for a variety of reasons.  They'll typically pick the ones that give them the most bang for the buck.




The problem with D&D armor is that there’s no meaningful trade-offs (possible sorta exception is disadvantage on stealth). Better armor is better, and you wear the best armor that you both can afford and have proficiency in. There’s no real decision.


----------



## MGibster (Nov 13, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> The problem with D&D armor is that there’s no meaningful trade-offs (possible sorta exception is disadvantage on stealth). Better armor is better, and you wear the best armor that you both can afford and have proficiency in. There’s no real decision.



I was all set on agreeing this was a problem, but then I thought to myself, "Is it really?"  If we're going to define best amor as that which provides the superior protection, you're right, there really isn't much of a reason for a character not to take what is objectively the best armor they can both afford and use.  In some games, you can't just walk around in heavy armor for no good reason.  Or at least it's not socially acceptable.  In D&D, the default assumption is that the PCs are wearing their armor when traveling, going to the library, or cracking open a few cold ones at the pub.  Honestly, this is just one of the many D&Disms I've come to accept over the years.  And if it's not the case in your game, great, but it seems to me that this would tend to favor classes that don't rely on armor for protection.  

Is it a problem?  Eh, it certainly makes choosing armor unintersting.  Getting to the point where I could afford plate armor was a pretty big deal for me in 1st and 2nd edition, but other than that, I don't know if I ever really cared that much about making interesting decisions about armor.  But then maybe I'd be more interested if it mattered?


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 13, 2022)

I still wish some armors gave resistance to piercing damage, others to acid damage, others to fire damage, others could be taken off or put on in two rounds, others gave advantage on intimidation checks, etc.. There's more adders that could be used for different armors.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Nov 13, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I was all set on agreeing this was a problem, but then I thought to myself, "Is it really?"  If we're going to define best amor as that which provides the superior protection, you're right, there really isn't much of a reason for a character not to take what is objectively the best armor they can both afford and use.  In some games, you can't just walk around in heavy armor for no good reason.  Or at least it's not socially acceptable.  In D&D, the default assumption is that the PCs are wearing their armor when traveling, going to the library, or cracking open a few cold ones at the pub.  Honestly, this is just one of the many D&Disms I've come to accept over the years.  And if it's not the case in your game, great, but it seems to me that this would tend to favor classes that don't rely on armor for protection.
> 
> Is it a problem?  Eh, it certainly makes choosing armor unintersting.  Getting to the point where I could afford plate armor was a pretty big deal for me in 1st and 2nd edition, but other than that, I don't know if I ever really cared that much about making interesting decisions about armor.  But then maybe I'd be more interested if it mattered?




Or just have a LOT more adversaries with Heat Metal.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Nov 13, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I still wish some armors gave resistance to piercing damage, others to acid damage, others to fire damage, others could be taken off or put on in two rounds, others gave advantage on intimidation checks, etc.. There's more adders that could be used for different armors.



If resistance would be more granular, that'd be awesome. Or maybe go with Damage Reduction instead:

Hide Armor: Medium, AC 13+ Dex (max 2), DR: Cold 3, Acid 3. Disadvantage on Stealth. 

Full plate: Heavy, AC 18, DR: 3 Slashing. Disadvantage on Stealth, Advantage on test against being forcibly moved.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Nov 13, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> What I am learning on this forum is that there is no point, however obvious, that folks won't debate.



Yes there is.


----------



## mellored (Nov 13, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I think it could be interesting to have the heavier armors give special THP (called them armor points, to avoid be able to have both) at the start of battle, recovering at the end of the encounter if you have Mending or the relevant Tool proficiency. So its not an always on damage mitigation, but having a thick cumbersome plate on your back helps you stand against your foes a little longer than a lightly armored rogue of the same AC.
> 
> You could even base those number of Armor Points on proficiency bonus, something like 3 AP per prof. bonus for chainmail, for example.



Final Fantasy Tactics did this, but it increased max HP.  Which would be easier to keep track of than armor points.

Padded: 11+Dex, increase your max HP by twice your level.

I could see it for monks and barbarians as well.
Unarmed defense: when not wearing armor, add your Wis/Con * level to your maximum hit points.


----------



## Nefermandias (Nov 13, 2022)

Morrus said:


> This is a pretty offensive thing to say to all the 3PP designers on this forum and elsewhere. Sure, choose what you want to buy, but tearing down 3PPs isn't a good look.



His point is, we shouldn't have to rely on 3pp to have something that was advertised as part of the official books. In this case, true modularity and solid options to customize your gaming experience.

There's also the fact that some groups will never accept the inclusion of 3pp or homebrew in their campaigns and only sticks to official releases.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 13, 2022)

Nefermandias said:


> His point is, we shouldn't have to rely on 3pp to have something that was advertised as part of the official books. In this case, true modularity and solid options to customize your gaming experience.
> 
> There's also the fact that some groups will never accept the inclusion of 3pp or homebrew in their campaigns and only sticks to official releases.



Yes, I understood him. But thanks.


----------



## Horwath (Nov 14, 2022)

haha,

this is great, and describes what forums and opinions are perfectly.


Also I like @Minigiant suggestion.

If PHB table look like that, I probably would not made my thread as there would be more options and trade-ins in picking armor.

having options for all(not just medium armor) to pick between stealth and +1 AC with base armors is great idea, also with having min STR expanded to light and medium categories.

my suggestion was into simplification as most armors in PHB are just waste of print outside 1st or 2nd level and then you just need to simplified them even more so not tho bother with fiddling with them, fer extra gold cost means nothing in later levels.

to me it would be great if all armors had different max DEX, different min STR, some with stealth penalty, some with -5ft speed penalty and some minor bonuses possibly(DR 1 vs one type of B,S or P damage)


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 14, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> To be fair, sometimes its a way to replace an existing system. Even if it can be used with it.



Right? If 5E was golden there'd be zero need for A5E. That A5E exists is indicative that someone wasn't happy with how official 5E worked. You don't go through the trouble of redesigning a system and most of its subsystems because you think the original works great as is.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Nov 14, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Right? If 5E was golden there'd be zero need for A5E. That A5E exists is indicative that someone wasn't happy with how official 5E worked. You don't go through the trouble of redesigning a system and most of its subsystems because you think the original works great as is.




But there's _always_ going to be people who think that, no matter how a game is written.  The only difference here is fandom for D&D is big enough it can support games trying to use the structure to do something very similar, whereas even other games that have problems there just aren't enough of them to support a second game because there _just aren't the huge number of fans_.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 14, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Right? If 5E was golden there'd be zero need for A5E. That A5E exists is indicative that someone wasn't happy with how official 5E worked. You don't go through the trouble of redesigning a system and most of its subsystems because you think the original works great as is.



That was not our motivation for making it.

We think 5E is great. It works great for what it is. We just happen to think there are other flavours of game, and A5E is one of them.  

Steak is great. But sometimes I like pizza.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 14, 2022)

Morrus said:


> That was not our motivation for making it.
> 
> We think 5E is great. It works great for what it is. We just happen to think there are other flavours of game, and A5E is one of them.
> 
> Steak is great. But sometimes I like pizza.



Right. Baseline 5E doesn't do what you want so you made a game that did. And, at a guess, most 3PP are much the same. They put out products for 5E that they'd like to see. But, importantly, for there to be any hope of selling books, _5E has to not actually do the thing well already_. You're filling a _gap_ in 5E. Either rules or content. If 5E was amazing in that particular thing, there'd be no need for 3PP to fill that gap. 5E is lacking this specific thing...so 3PP are there to fill that gap. 5E's great, but you need more cool monsters...so here's a dozen high-quality monster books. 5E's great, but you need more modules...so here's dozens of high-quality modules. 5E's great, but you need more detailed exploration rules...so here's a dozen high-quality books for that. Call me crazy, I'd rather 5E not be riddled with huge gaps in the first place. I shouldn't need a 3PP book to have decent exploration rules, 5E should already have them...but it doesn't...which is why there's a few dozen 3PP books covering that gap.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Nov 14, 2022)

Morrus said:


> That was not our motivation for making it.
> 
> We think 5E is great. It works great for what it is. We just happen to think there are other flavours of game, and A5E is one of them.
> 
> Steak is great. But sometimes I like pizza.



If every pork chop was perfect, we wouldn't have hotdogs!


----------



## Morrus (Nov 14, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Right. Baseline 5E doesn't do what you want so you made a game that did. And, at a guess, most 3PP are much the same. They put out products for 5E that they'd like to see. But, importantly, for there to be any hope of selling books, _5E has to not actually do the thing well already_. You're filling a _gap_ in 5E. Either rules or content. If 5E was amazing in that particular thing, there'd be no need for 3PP to fill that gap. 5E is lacking this specific thing...so 3PP are there to fill that gap. 5E's great, but you need more cool monsters...so here's a dozen high-quality monster books. 5E's great, but you need more modules...so here's dozens of high-quality modules. 5E's great, but you need more detailed exploration rules...so here's a dozen high-quality books for that. Call me crazy, I'd rather 5E not be riddled with huge gaps in the first place. I shouldn't need a 3PP book to have decent exploration rules, 5E should already have them...but it doesn't...which is why there's a few dozen 3PP books covering that gap.



Eh. You’re positioning it as better/worse. We see it as different. Ice cream isn’t better or worse than pizza. It’s different.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 14, 2022)

Morrus said:


> You’re positioning it as better/worse.



Not really. D&D 5E is marketed and sold as a Leatherman Multi-Tool but when you open it up you notice it's missing the Philip's head screwdriver, serrated blade, file, pliers, and ruler. Each sold separately. By different companies. With different standards of writing, art, layout, budgets, and sensibilities. I'm not saying 3PP are better or worse. I'm saying the thing I bought (5E) is incomplete. I get that you make money off selling the missing bits, and that's great, no complaints about you or other 3PP. All I'm saying is that 5E should be a complete game unto itself, which it is not. Clearly. Hence all the 3PP selling us the Philip's head screwdriver, serrated blade, file, pliers, and ruler. A lot of people are fine with those parts not being included and they're fine going out and buying the missing bits from 3PP. More power to them and more power to the 3PP. I'm frustrated that 5E is incomplete in the first place.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 14, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Not really. D&D 5E is marketed and sold as a Leatherman Multi-Tool but when you open it up you notice it's missing the Philip's head screwdriver, serrated blade, file, pliers, and ruler. Each sold separately. By different companies. With different standards of writing, art, layout, budgets, and sensibilities. I'm not saying 3PP are better or worse. I'm saying the thing I bought (5E) is incomplete. I get that you make money off selling the missing bits, and that's great, no complaints about you or other 3PP. All I'm saying is that 5E should be a complete game unto itself, which it is not. Clearly. Hence all the 3PP selling us the Philip's head screwdriver, serrated blade, file, pliers, and ruler. A lot of people are fine with those parts not being included and they're fine going out and buying the missing bits from 3PP. More power to them and more power to the 3PP. I'm frustrated that 5E is incomplete in the first place.



To clarify again, that is not how we feel or our motivation for making A5E.


----------



## phuong (Nov 14, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> I'm frustrated that 5E is incomplete in the first place.



When I played 2nd edition, I thought it was fully complete at the time.
5e has sold more copies than all the other editions put together.
Your complaint comes across like a jilted teen lover who is bad mouthing an ex girlfriend with fabricated flaws.
Some people will always jealously complain though, because they are haters, not lovers.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 14, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> i hear/read this all the time and can't imagine why you would want to BOTH stay with D&D AND buy other company stuff...



Because D&D is the easiest to find players for and is the ideal gateway drug for other roleplaying and because, since they're not trying to sell to the same huge audience, third party D&D books tend to be a lot quirkier and more flavorful.

I've got books with procedurally generated demiplanes and urban campaign books large enough to kill a housepet if they fell on them, neither of which WotC is likely to make anything like any time soon.


----------



## occam (Nov 14, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> What I am learning on this forum is that there is no point, however obvious, that folks won't debate.



I won't argue that.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 14, 2022)

MGibster said:


> In _Cyberpunk 2020, _published in 1991, there were a myriad of brand name firearms you could purchase.   Your character might buy a cheap piece of junk pistol like the Dai Lung Cybermag 15 or spend a few more eddies for a Sternmeyer Type 35 which was more reliable.  In _Cyberpunk Red, _you just pick the pistol type (medium, heavy, or very heavy) and decide whether it's poor, standard, or of excellent quality.  The book gives you some brand names to associate with each quality level, but it's not the same.  It's not as fun.
> 
> On the flip side, you tended to see PCs selecte the same weapons.  They weren't getting a POS Dai Lung they were purchasing a reliable Sternmeyer instead.  And D&D is kind of like that, there are all sorts of weapons and armor you don't see players picking all that often for a variety of reasons.  They'll typically pick the ones that give them the most bang for the buck.



To me, that's an argument for knocking weapons down into simple, light, heavy, martial or some other simple set of categories. Make them each do the same amount of damage, but allow the players to call them whatever they like.

I like rogues and I love swashbucklers, but every rogue in D&D using a rapier is a bummer.


----------



## occam (Nov 14, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Right. Baseline 5E doesn't do what you want so you made a game that did. And, at a guess, most 3PP are much the same. They put out products for 5E that they'd like to see. But, importantly, for there to be any hope of selling books, _5E has to not actually do the thing well already_. You're filling a _gap_ in 5E. Either rules or content. If 5E was amazing in that particular thing, there'd be no need for 3PP to fill that gap. 5E is lacking this specific thing...so 3PP are there to fill that gap. 5E's great, but you need more cool monsters...so here's a dozen high-quality monster books. 5E's great, but you need more modules...so here's dozens of high-quality modules. 5E's great, but you need more detailed exploration rules...so here's a dozen high-quality books for that. Call me crazy, I'd rather 5E not be riddled with huge gaps in the first place.



So, you're saying the basic D&D product should contain thousands of monsters, all the adventures that could ever be played, and every version of exploration rules that any table might want? That would resolve "huge gaps" you've identified?

That would make for a pretty big book; I'd hate to see the price tag on it.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 14, 2022)

Morrus said:


> Eh. You’re positioning it as better/worse. We see it as different. Ice cream isn’t better or worse than pizza. It’s different.



Any given fan may see A5e as better or worse than O5e, because we all have different preferences. In my case, in just about every place you deviated from O5e, I preferred your version.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 14, 2022)

Morrus said:


> To clarify again, that is not how we feel or our motivation for making A5E.



Cool. I didn’t say it was. It is, however, how a lot of people feel in general. Not about you and your motivation, but about 5E and gaps in design. Some people are tired of being told to patch 5E with 3PP books. I want a complete game in as few books as possible. Not three half-done books and six bandaids from three other companies. It shouldn’t be hard for the biggest company in RPGs.


----------



## MGibster (Nov 14, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> To me, that's an argument for knocking weapons down into simple, light, heavy, martial or some other simple set of categories. Make them each do the same amount of damage, but allow the players to call them whatever they like.



Mechanically that's a lot easier to do.  But it's boring.  Instead of getting a Malorian Arms 3516 or a Constitution Arms Hurricane Assault Weapon I get get a Very Heavy Pistol or a Shotgun.  Yawn.  Don't get me wrong, I tend to lean more towards simple, light, heavy, etc., etc.  But, man, it's dull as dishwater.  

In _Conan _from Modiphius, weapons have certain qualities that make them attractive or unattractive depending on the situation.  A weapon might be easy to hide, only used one-handed if your strength is high enough, inflicts mental damage as well as physical damage, knockdown opponents, etc., etc.  Something like that might be neat, but not if it would slow the game down.


----------



## overgeeked (Nov 14, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Because D&D is the easiest to find players for and is the ideal gateway drug for other roleplaying and because, since they're not trying to sell to the same huge audience, third party D&D books tend to be a lot quirkier and more flavorful.
> 
> I've got books with procedurally generated demiplanes and urban campaign books large enough to kill a housepet if they fell on them, neither of which WotC is likely to make anything like any time soon.



And in some cases it’s literally the only game some people will bother playing. If you want to play an RPG, in some cases, it’s 5E or nothing.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 14, 2022)

MGibster said:


> In _Conan _from Modiphius, weapons have certain qualities that make them attractive or unattractive depending on the situation.  A weapon might be easy to hide, only used one-handed if your strength is high enough, inflicts mental damage as well as physical damage, knockdown opponents, etc., etc.  Something like that might be neat, but not if it would slow the game down.



Yeah, I lived through AD&D and puzzled over the weapon chart with its speeds and everything else and the added complexity just weren't worth it to me, then or now.

I'd rather just say "your 1d6 weapon as a light weapon user can be any of these forty items, as you wish." Not satisfying to the folks wanting more nitty gritty detail, but that's why, in an ideal world, there'd be a weapons supplement that let you plug in much more detailed systems for those who wanted them.


----------



## tetrasodium (Nov 15, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yeah, I lived through AD&D and puzzled over the weapon chart with its speeds and everything else and the added complexity just weren't worth it to me, then or now.
> 
> I'd rather just say "your 1d6 weapon as a light weapon user can be any of these forty items, as you wish." Not satisfying to the folks wanting more nitty gritty detail, but that's why, in an ideal world, there'd be a weapons supplement that let you plug in much more detailed systems for those who wanted them.



The 2d20 system used by conan is a dice pool thing that's pretty different from d&d.  IIRC  you got an extra die in your pool if you had something like a weapon/skill/etc that had a relevant property to what you were attempting to do.  It wasn't at all like the abomination of those speed factor tables


----------



## teitan (Nov 15, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> Yes. Or actual modularity, which was the original design intent for 5e.



Modularity that actually exists in 5e.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Nov 15, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yeah, I lived through AD&D and puzzled over the weapon chart with its speeds and everything else and the added complexity just weren't worth it to me, then or now.
> .




But then again …. POLEARMS!!!!

And the Great God Gygax came down upon the people and shared with them his work, for he knew it to be good. And finally, looking upon the wondrous Appendix T, the Gygax spoke …

_It’s like, how many more polearms could there be? And the answer is none. None more polearms_.


----------



## Olrox17 (Nov 16, 2022)

teitan said:


> Modularity that actually exists in 5e.



I won’t derail this thread by discussing something that has been discussed to death in the last decade. Suffice to say that no, a smattering of half baked variants in the DMG doesn’t make for a modular game. If you disagree, that’s ok.


----------



## occam (Nov 16, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Some people are tired of being told to patch 5E with 3PP books. I want a complete game in as few books as possible. Not three half-done books and six bandaids from three other companies. It shouldn’t be hard for the biggest company in RPGs.



In an attempt to better understand your position: For comparison, can you provide examples of other "complete" games comprised of one or a small number of first-party publications, that need and perhaps have no third-party support, with scope similar to D&D? (I.e. that allow for creation of a wide variety of characters, who can participate in a wide variety of activities, even if confined to a broad genre like "fantasy".) What do those games include that D&D is missing, in your view?


----------



## Micah Sweet (Nov 16, 2022)

occam said:


> In an attempt to better understand your position: For comparison, can you provide examples of other "complete" games comprised of one or a small number of first-party publications, that need and perhaps have no third-party support, with scope similar to D&D? (I.e. that allow for creation of a wide variety of characters, who can participate in a wide variety of activities, even if confined to a broad genre like "fantasy".) What do those games include that D&D is missing, in your view?



I've heard good things about Worlds Without Number.  I haven't read it, but if it's anything like Stars Without Number, there's very little it can't do within its genre.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 16, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I've heard good things about Worlds Without Number.  I haven't read it, but if it's anything like Stars Without Number, there's very little it can't do within its genre.



I'm not sure other games are asked to stretch as much as D&D is.

"Look, you can do traditional dungeon crawling, fine, but if you can't also do Gothic horror, kingdom management, ship to ship combat both on the ground and in space, and mystery investigations, all with rules that are simple to learn but deep enough to be rewarding to use as one's sole RPG for their entire life, you will be an abject failure."

Sometimes the answer is playing other, more specialized games.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Nov 16, 2022)

occam said:


> In an attempt to better understand your position: For comparison, can you provide examples of other "complete" games comprised of one or a small number of first-party publications, that need and perhaps have no third-party support, with scope similar to D&D? (I.e. that allow for creation of a wide variety of characters, who can participate in a wide variety of activities, even if confined to a broad genre like "fantasy".) What do those games include that D&D is missing, in your view?




I think that, probably accidentally, you've put your thumb on the scale with the "one or a small number" clause there.  I can think of a couple, but that clause by itself makes sure they're pretty obscure.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Nov 16, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I'm not sure other games are asked to stretch as much as D&D is.
> 
> "Look, you can do traditional dungeon crawling, fine, but if you can't also do Gothic horror, kingdom management, ship to ship combat both on the ground and in space, and mystery investigations, all with rules that are simple to learn but deep enough to be rewarding to use as one's sole RPG for their entire life, you will be an abject failure."
> 
> Sometimes the answer is playing other, more specialized games.




Generic games are a thing.  They often do have supplemental works, but they exist.  Mind you I'm not getting into the "No True Scotsman" the "rules that are simple to learn but deep enough to be rewarding" because that's subjective enough to ask for that as a dismissal of any examples I gave.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 16, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> Generic games are a thing.  They often do have supplemental works, but they exist.  Mind you I'm not getting into the "No True Scotsman" the "rules that are simple to learn but deep enough to be rewarding" because that's subjective enough to ask for that as a dismissal of any examples I gave.



They do, but GURPS and company immediately point you to modular rule sets -- available for additional payment -- to make most of it work. At the basic level, they don't truly do _everything_ to the same level of customer satisfaction.


----------



## Thomas Shey (Nov 16, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> They do, but GURPS and company immediately point you to modular rule sets -- available for additional payment -- to make most of it work. At the basic level, they don't truly do _everything_ to the same level of customer satisfaction.




Hero doesn't (there are things like Fantasy Hero, but they're far from necessary).  Neither does EABA.  Savage Worlds might be hard to do without more monsters, but all the basics you need for the things you said are in the core book.

I'd also question whether D&D does everything either, much as some people like to claim it does.  It runs certain particular types of fantasy okay, but even fantasy outside that scope isn't well supported.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 16, 2022)

Thomas Shey said:


> I'd also question whether D&D does everything either, much as some people like to claim it does.  It runs certain particular types of fantasy okay, but even fantasy outside that scope isn't well supported.



Yeah, that was my point. It does D&D-style fantasy well.

It does not do, say, a Wizard of Earthsea or Harry Potter or Terry Pratchett or the Black Company or A Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings nearly as well. I think in those cases, other systems are a better answer than trying to stretch the system into shapes that it won't ever hold terribly well.

The two D&D versions of The One Ring are a better choice for Middle-Earth play than straight D&D, for instance. (And some would argue that both versions of The One Ring are even better.)


----------



## Thomas Shey (Nov 17, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yeah, that was my point. It does D&D-style fantasy well.
> 
> It does not do, say, a Wizard of Earthsea or Harry Potter or Terry Pratchett or the Black Company or A Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings nearly as well. I think in those cases, other systems are a better answer than trying to stretch the system into shapes that it won't ever hold terribly well.
> 
> The two D&D versions of The One Ring are a better choice for Middle-Earth play than straight D&D, for instance. (And some would argue that both versions of The One Ring are even better.)




My only point was that it not only does those worse than a specialized tool for the job, it does so worse than some generalized tools.  You can very much argue that's the price of it doing what it does do extensively, and at least competently, but its not impossible to do a broader thing competently, its just more work.


----------

