It’s a big topic that I will now try to unpack in a series of Tweets. https://t.co/1TRQh19OTk
This Tweet is unavailable.
Show this thread
-
The downside to this approach is that the rules became comprehensive to a fault. The game’s rules bloated, as they sought to resolve many if not all questions that arise in play with the game text.
Show this thread
At the same time, 3.5 and 4 were driven by the idea that D&D players wanted as many character options as possible, presented in a modular framework meant to encourage the search for combinations that yielded characters who broke the power curve.
-
-
These two aims play together in an extremely terrible way, at least from a design perspective. Your core system has to cover everything... meanwhile you are adding more cases and content to your game. Good luck with keeping those things in balance!
Show this thread -
IMO, the basic design premise suffers from a fatal flaw. It misses out on a ton of the elements that make RPGs distinct and doesn’t speak to why people enjoy D&D in the first place.
Show this thread -
With 5th, we assumed that the DM was there to have a good time, put on an engaging performance, and keep the group interested, excited, and happy. It’s a huge change, because we no longer expect you to turn to the book for an answer. We expect the DM to do that.
Show this thread -
In terms of players, we focus much more on narrative and identity, rather than specific, mechanical advantages. Who you are is more important than what you do, to the point that your who determines your what.
Show this thread -
In broad terms - and based on what we can observe of the community from a variety of measures - we went from a community that focused on mechanics and expertise, to one focused on socializing and story telling.
Show this thread -
Mechanical expertise is an element of the game, but no longer the sole focus. Ideally, it’s a balanced part of all the other motivators. If balanaced correctly, every has their fun. Enjoyment isn’t zero sum.
Show this thread -
As D&D is descriptive rather than prescriptive, individual groups had different experiences. However, that was the design trend and what we saw in the community as a whole. It’s been interesting to see things change with the change in rules and the flood of new players.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Most of my personal 3.5 experience comes from building broken characters for the Cheese Grinder at Dragon Con. I loved the vast number of 3.5 options.
-
3.5 was great until like, level 6, at which point all of the modifiers and conditionals made One Big Combat take all night, and Min-Maxxer gimmicks could get game-breaking.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Would you say 3.0 did not share this issue? 3.0 was where I first saw the reference to “Rule Zero,” which is essentially what Jeremy now says before most of his answers to 5e rules questions. Did 3.5/4 undermine Rule Zero?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.