D&D 5e on the other hand goes back to pretending to support a lot of different things (but being thin on the ground on many), had designers who totally gave up on the revolutionary thing they were doing about 2-3 years into development and went back to reproducing an older version of D&D instead (the first playtest packet had a lot of previous edition stuff literally just copied and pasted).
It is made with and espouses attitudes from decades past which are seen as poor attitudes by the current cutting edge of thought in design and social management for RPGs, and it finally went and attempted to implement features which have been working very well in other roleplaying games for years (hence backgrounds and inspiration), but did so poorly compared to all those very same roleplaying games because they missed the point or were trapped by the old ethos they were operating under.
(E.g. GMNoob suggests Inspiration was expressly taken from Fate's fate point mechanic, and if that is true, the developers clearly totally failed to understand what makes fate points really come to life, or rejected it as incompatible with ethos such as that the GM must control everything, and is the game's benevolent overlord rather than an equal.)
I cannot express any level of confidence in a game designed thus.
~ For some explanation on that giving up on what they were doing comment: At the beginning of D&D 5e's development, the dev blogs were talking about how they were creating a modular system where you could plug in or unplug various subsystems, and you'd wind up being able to fully support any type of gameplay: mystery investigation, social intrigue, espionage, and so on. They would have a core system, then you'd plug in a few modules and wind up with a gritty dark supernatural mystery game, etc.
This is an almost insurmountable goal, because the core to such a system is.... nothing at all. All of these types of experiences require a different core. I was interested to see what they would do, but I did not expect them to actually succeed in the endeavour.
They were talking about this more or less all the way up until the first playtest release, which simply contained something that was pretty much altogether identical to any version of D&D: roll some stats, pick a race and a class, go fighting. It was shoddy and slapped together; I recall early playtest packets contained high-level monk features that were literally a copy-paste from early editions, and from what I recall it was also not clear how you'd even really be expected to get and use them.
(Correct me if I'm wrong on that part.)
The modular approach talk was completely dropped at that point, with no acknowledgement or explanation of the change of direction, no "well we couldn't actually do that so we're doing this instead," and so on, just a "here's the thing we've been talking about all this time!" which wasn't the modular thing and had no signs of being such. And it was never mentioned again.
@BESW If any of this is inaccurate, please do correct me. I might have some of the timeframe a bit messed up.
@doppelgreener: I for one am glad that they went back to the future. The appeal to "cutting edge" leaves me cold. Some things have not been improved upon. Sadly, there are still no few loopholes and strange bits of text to mull over.
No, I mean they made the new version by going back to look at some core things that made this game, and put it into the new system that is the near future ... until 5.5 or 6 comes out.
From a cold reading of the Basic rules, 5e looks more like a lot of different systems--multiple D&D editions and non-D&D concepts--pasted together, rather than a coherent whole. Specifically different bits of the engine seem at odds with each other, or fail to accomplish what they claim to be for.
@KorvinStarmast It is not very near-future. I have heard many people comment it feels pretty much just like AD&D and AD&D 2e, and it has borrowed a lot of those versions' features and their "features" and their bugs and mistakes. It has also borrowed things from its contemporaries.
To be clear I don't mind whether a game is some form of cutting edge or not. I very much enjoy games that don't try to be something terrifically new, much as I enjoy games that do. I do care about a game being designed by a team that's honest and focused about exactly what it is and isn't, and hones it proudly and expertly to serve those purposes.
Understood, there are a LOT fo things in 5e that I appreciate from old D&D, to include: Formal background benefits. Advantage/disadvantage. Lots of simplifying crap that got tooooo bloated. (They lost me with 3.0. 3.5 and 4.0.)
"That I appreciate as improvements better than old D&D"
@KorvinStarmast ...that's not how this sort of marketing works, and Wizards knows it or they wouldn't have made the Basic Rules free. Evil Hat has shown the success of "make the central bits free and if it's good enough people will buy the stuff around it."
@BESW Make a new one, I can't find a way to make that room no longer a gallery and it should no longer be that. (Unless @waxeagle can perform such sorcery?)
@KorvinStarmast I think you're missing @BESW's point slightly; WotC released the Basic Rules specifically so that people could try 5e without paying any money. What BESW is after is an adventure to go with those rules and actually allow for trying 5e without spending any money. As it stands, there's no real purpose to the Basic Rules being free because you still have to spend money to try them out.
@doppelgreener Never said it was; and I don't really see how it makes a difference. I don't get emotional about monks or alignments, but I don't get into arguments about them in chat either.
@miniman ... Based on your point, I think my no free lunch comment sussed out what he wanted. But in support of the general point, It really helped that Basic was there when my old group from the 70's suggested that we try 5e. It helped me get excited again.
@KorvinStarmast Sure! Unfortunately to someone in my situation it's... marketing, but only in the advertising sense. "Look at what you could have if you gave us money to buy an adventure" because new people don't know what an adventure in that system is meant to be like.
Other games with free releases that also include everything you need to play are like: "Look! Here! Have this thing. It's a whole package. You can play it right now and sample it. You'll have a complete experience. If you like it, you can pay to have more of the sdame."
@KorvinStarmast I see. And yeah. It just means I don't get to actually play and try 5e yet. When a free adventure comes out, BESW and I have plans to at least sample it, but we can't do that yet.
@doppelgreener Ok, going back to my original comment - I suggested moving the argument to another room, Korvin apologised for starting an argument, so I pointed out that he wasn't solely responsible for starting an argument.
@dopple: also don't forget that Wizards has to please the suits at Hasbro. Sort of like how UTC got pissed off at Sikorsky for only pulling a 7% profit, and has thus spun off one of the oldest aircraft manufacturing companies in this country, and one that helped make UT what it is. (Sorry, emotions hitting me again).
OK, then we agree that the give it away that one company can do may not be correct in the corporate environment of another. sigh I wish I didn't understand some of this stuff, my dear inspector doppel. :) (reference to olivier/caine movie "sleuth")
@doppelgreener I'm not saying you were solely responsible either. Codeacula sparked the discussion in the first place, I contributed to it, so did BESW, etc. Before we got bogged down in explanation, all I was trying to do was suggest to Korvin that he shouldn't feel bad about starting all this.
@Miniman Korvin brought an emotional charge to an edition discussion. That is his responsibility, so I take issue with being lumped into that. It was a tense discussion. It is other peoples' responsibility to manage their calm. (Alas, not an easy thing to do.)
@doppel: OK, it's OK to disagree. As it is early in 5e's life, the amount of other material that is in the for profit side of the model remains somewhat unknown ... we'll see.
@OK, and it's my bad if you got sharpnel from my less than objective input.
As I mentioned to SSD, chat is not good as a format for me. See last inputs as Exhibit A, your honor. :(
@Miniman And I should have seen the response coming from a mile away, but I thought we'd already been well past the point where I cannot lodge any criticism at 5e.
We can poke massive holes in Shadowrun, and many other games. It is a genuine problem to me that if I do the same to 5e, bad stuff happens, and then I get told off for doing so. (Or anyone does.)
D&D 5e's emotional immunity to analysis and deconstruction is a sincere issue to me.
@Korvin I don't entirely fault you. I should have seen it coming like I said, and not said half the things I said, given I was practically laying landmines that someone would respond to without my realising it.
@doppelgreener I didn't mean to tell you off in any way. I've learned never to engage in these discussions, but I've also learned that they generally start fights, which is why I suggested moving it to an alternative chat.
@KorvinStarmast RPG Chat is an amazingly friendly place.
We can discuss and have discussed topics like opposing political and religious views, physical and sexual abuse, sexuality and gender identity, and had a calm and pleasant and embracing discussion.
@doppelgreener: the other point is that we can't ever save the game from the players, by which I mean the min/max MC advocates. No matter what the dev tries, someone will find each and every loophole.
@KorvinStarmast I don't consider the min/max MC advocates to be a problem, and it's best to be careful about associating optimizers as being bad players. They have a different gameplay objective and playstyle to you, but that doesn't mean they are a problem, or as many would put it (maybe not you) playing the game wrong. They are just problematic for you if you're trying to play alongside one.
@Miniman: indeed. In time, it helps the folks who make the game improve it. in Time.
@miniman: to put it another way, in a game where role specialization and meta roles are the blue print, how can we criticize anyone who takes specialization and goes for it? See also Fighter Pilots.
@Miniman: the game goes faster if more people know it,and I mean really know it. See also Golf. ;) As I noted in "full disclosure" I always bump dex a bit. ):-)
@KorvinStarmast Let's be clear here you made a statement just before accusing a large swathe of people of making the game worse because of their playstyle (or rather, that the game needs to be saved from them). This is not a time to joke.
@KorvinStarmast As an example, my answer here. I found a loophole and exploited it. It's not a particularly powerful loophole, it's just one that allows the querent to do something the game wasn't really allowing him to do.
It's not going to break games, or cause problems for DMs.
@doppel: well, that is my experience, in terms of At Table conduct. In terms of long term health of the game, sure, it can improve the experience. And FGS, over the past 40 years, it's one of the core inputs to game improvement.
We avoid obscenities as this is a PG-13 chat, acronymising it doesn't make it much better. It brings an unnecessary tone to an otherwise fine statement.
I'm not clear what statements you're trying to make, and it is probably best I exit this discussion to focus on something else.
@KorvinStarmast -- here's the thing -- RP shouldn't exclude specialization (because otherwise you wouldn't get party development), and it also shouldn't preclude optimization (we optimize ourselves at work, it's called "professional development". why are our D&D chars any different?)
@doppelgreener:Fixed that. More to the point, what you get out of a game is what you put into it. In RPG's that are a cooperative effort, I have seen lots of things that people put into it that break up a group. It isn't just minmax, as I've dabbled in that myself as well. IT's part can be part of the fun.
@KorvinStarmast I suggest you actually read that article Miniman said.
It's from a person who knows how to optimise, and is also a developer for one of the Pathfinder third party publishers who are known for producing good quality content.
@doppelgreener: I respectfully request that you read my take on minmax, during which I fended off about a half a dozen comments on the emiotional side ranting against that. My answer is objective. Please, read it again. I read what MM provided, and it is nothing new to me. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Particularly, he addresses that people with system mastery can use it to improve the health of the game and avoid causing trouble. The problems you've experienced are a reflection on those individuals, and certain attitudes people bring to the game, but not system mastery and min/maxing in and of itself.
@miniman -- that's actually a rather cool build -- if my halfling Bahamut follower had started Pally instead of Cleric, that actually wouldn't be a half-bad build to play with, both from a RP and a mechanics standpoint
@KorvinStarmast I did. I read it. I don't see what exactly you're trying to say in your later comments. And as I said, I should probably exit this given things are getting unclear for me.
@KorvinStarmast Yes. I am. I am having trouble understanding what you're trying to communicate with what you're writing.
@KorvinStarmast Your point seems to be that while optimization improves the long term health of a game, it's inherently problematic if it happens at a table. Is that correct?
@doppelgreener: I said it better at a GITP post. In some ways, MM's screw up the game experience, or can, and in some ways, they help it get better. Mixed Bag.
@Shalvenay Thanks! I'm inordinately proud of coming up with that trick. It makes for a weak character in development, but it has potential to be reasonably good in play once you get the build going.
@doppelgreener: No, it can be problematic. And I've lots of experience on that score. As to definitions, I think you need to look at some of the comments deleted in my attempt at an objective response.
@doppelgreener: I got blanket assertions about what the "actual" connotation of that word is. I've seen it applied in games like Diablo II and Guild Wars.
FYI, if you want to respond to a specific message (which can make conversations clearer sometimes), you can mouse over that message and click the bendy arrow on the right hand side of it.
Min Maxing is a tool. It is a process. Someone who makes it an aim in and of itself can break a table. That is where the foul connotation of minmax comes from, but I don't have to tell you that.
@KorvinStarmast -- I'm going to throw a curveball at you here. Have you ever considered that some systems make min-maxing/character-and-equipment-optimization an in-character activity?
@KorvinStarmast -- and they can break a table by breaking the DM's ability to handle them, but that's a reflection on the DM more than it is on the players IMO.
@Miniman -- yeah. drama queens can be just as bad in a hack n' slash as a pure minmaxer can be when flung into an environment that's fallen for the Stormwind Fallacy hook, line, and sinker
@KorvinStarmast -- actually, D&D charopt has almost always been OOC
@Shalvenay: read Men and Magic. 1. Role meta and specialization. 2. Bonus exp for stats at certain valures. Min Max has been with us since the beginning. As with religion, it's what you do with it that can make for a mess. :p PS: that arrow thing ain't doin' it.
@KorvinStarmast what I'm saying is that minmax happens -- but how it interacts with RPed character development is system and setting dependent, and D&D does not pose a particularly good set of conditions for making minmax and RP get along
@Shalvenay: I never liked the basic set, even though I bought it. For all for the effort at organizing things quickly, it never sat well. @miniman - no the one on the left.
Thank you all for your kind efforts and conversation tonight, I am off to inspect the effects of the pernicious sleep spell that was cast upon me by Shiner.
