This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: The OneDnD Agenda  (Read 36641 times)

wmarshal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • w
  • Posts: 631
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #330 on: September 30, 2022, 01:19:05 PM »
Just saw part of one of their videos where they’re apparently trying to tie feats to having level and class type requirements. They’re not going in the wrong direction with Wokeness, but mechanically as well. I don’t know many whose complaint about 5th Ed is that they wanted to go back to feat trees. Just more opportunity for the OSR to expand.

I wonder if that's aimed at Pathfinder players, especially 2e ones.
Which is hilarious, since most PF2E feats are more like SWADE edges in my opinion. They typically do have a skill-level requirement, but if you're playing with those feat trees anyways you should have that in the bag. The retraining rules also allow for PCs to adjust if they grab something that doesn't work out for them.
I’m played in a PF2E campaign. Retraining and the feat trees were a thorough pain in the ass.

As far as being like SWADE edges, only somewhat. Over a 20 level build in PF2E you’ll pick something like 30 feats divided by race feats, class feats, skill feats and general feats, each with their own subsets. In a SWADE campaign over 20 advances one is likely to pick up 10 edges, and the edge trees are simpler than PF2E.

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #331 on: September 30, 2022, 04:02:48 PM »
SWADE and its edges are very different because SWADE is halfway between a skill and level system and its own internal mathematics is complicated and requires allot of knowledge.

Pathfinder 2e on the other hand has VERY, VERRY ridgid maths. Its feat treas are a real chore to learn and I feel waste allot of space.

I mean SWADE doesn't have classes normally, and even when it does it rarely has feat trees more like feat shrubs.

Jaeger

  • That someone better.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #332 on: September 30, 2022, 04:36:05 PM »

I’m played in a PF2E campaign. Retraining and the feat trees were a thorough pain in the ass.

...Over a 20 level build in PF2E you’ll pick something like 30 feats divided by race feats, class feats, skill feats and general feats, each with their own subsets. ...

I have the PF2 rules, and yeah; The featapalooza in that game is absolutely ridiculous. It does do some things that would have been improvements on 5e - but then: feats.

Speaking of improving 5e...

Remember the whole: "DnDOne will be 100% backwards compatible."

I can see that they are going all-out to make that happen LOL...


"The envious are not satisfied with equality; they secretly yearn for superiority and revenge."

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #333 on: September 30, 2022, 06:15:34 PM »
Remember the whole: "DnDOne will be 100% backwards compatible."


All of the below looks extremly backwards compatible and I hate 5e. 5e is barely a system and has nearly no kind of mechanical spine, so nothing listed below breaks any sort of compatibility with it.

Its gonna be a degree more woke, but the successor looks as tepid in any of its changes as its predacessor.

FingerRod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 600
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #334 on: September 30, 2022, 07:31:45 PM »
Its gonna be a degree more woke, but the successor looks as tepid in any of its changes as its predacessor.

Agreed.

Orcs are vanilla as Hell, as are the other races. And orcs haven’t been orcs for a long time. I don’t see anything woke in the 21 page playtest document. It reads very similar to the 5e PHB.

And while I do believe many of the people at WotC do in fact hate me because of my political choices, I do not think they hate TTRPGs or want to sink the hobby.

Jaeger

  • That someone better.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #335 on: October 01, 2022, 04:00:08 PM »
...
All of the below looks extremly backwards compatible and I hate 5e. 5e is barely a system and has nearly no kind of mechanical spine, so nothing listed below breaks any sort of compatibility with it.
...

I disagree.

Everything is so "Revised" that new core books will need to be bought, and adventure material will need to be converted.

Yes, 3.5 was technically "fully backwards compatible" to 3.0.

But the practical differences were enough that most groups just moved over to 3.5 outright.


... I don’t see anything woke in the 21 page playtest document. It reads very similar to the 5e PHB.

It's a rules reference playtest doc. They're not so stupid as to get on their high horse in that...

I give Ray Winniger credit - he's far more savvy than the sparkletrolls on twitter.

The woke will be in the marketing and play culture that WotC D&D is cultivating. They will continue to do what they have been doing and inserting little bit more woke elements here and there in the lore for supplements and adventure paths.

The slow lobster boil will continue.


And while I do believe many of the people at WotC do in fact hate me because of my political choices, I do not think they hate TTRPGs or want to sink the hobby.

They will sink D&D by default because they hate the culture and generation of gamers that created the hobby, and the underlying mythology that D&D was originally based on.
"The envious are not satisfied with equality; they secretly yearn for superiority and revenge."

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #336 on: October 01, 2022, 04:39:52 PM »
Yes, 3.5 was technically "fully backwards compatible" to 3.0.

3e has a mechanical spine more complex then '+2->+6 over 20 levels' (+ some class benefit sprinkles). Its a broken spine, but 5e "fixed" most issues of past editions by just not even trying to be ambitious about anthing at all, and fixing by amputation (and before you OD&D me, even it had more of a mechanical understanding of itself). I have seen MUCH better efforts from 1 man teams. For materials that where released for free. And actually are much more fully backwards compatible with 2e and older materials.

'Oh but It won't be balanced with 5es classes!!!!' . Because 5es classes and sub-options where so very balanced internally already. If your playing 5e, your not very concerned with any sort of mathematics or design elements as an underpin.

FingerRod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • F
  • Posts: 600
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #337 on: October 01, 2022, 05:14:42 PM »
... I don’t see anything woke in the 21 page playtest document. It reads very similar to the 5e PHB.

It's a rules reference playtest doc. They're not so stupid as to get on their high horse in that...

I give Ray Winniger credit - he's far more savvy than the sparkletrolls on twitter.

The woke will be in the marketing and play culture that WotC D&D is cultivating. They will continue to do what they have been doing and inserting little bit more woke elements here and there in the lore for supplements and adventure paths.

The slow lobster boil will continue.

I am aware that it is a playtest document. The fact remains, they did not change Race. While they did water down Orcs, they did not virtue signal or wet themselves as one might expect. There is nothing in either playtest document.

Am I betting they will remain non-woke? No way!  :) Every core book release since Xanathar’s has been marching more and more left. But I’m also not claiming there is a OneDnD Agenda until there is evidence. The post I was agreeing with was stating the same thing you are with respect to what they will do with supplements and adventure paths.

And while I do believe many of the people at WotC do in fact hate me because of my political choices, I do not think they hate TTRPGs or want to sink the hobby.

They will sink D&D by default because they hate the culture and generation of gamers that created the hobby, and the underlying mythology that D&D was originally based on.

Perhaps, but this is not evidence they are motivated to sink the hobby or hate TTRPGs—which is what I said.

Do you believe the people creating OneDnD hate TTRPGs and want to sink the hobby?

wmarshal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • w
  • Posts: 631
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #338 on: October 01, 2022, 05:38:18 PM »
One can certainly believe they hate the TTRPG community and games as constituted. Being Woke is a totalitarian ideology. Any segment or element that doesn’t bend the knee drives them insane. They can seek to purge the current TTRPG environment in the hopes of rebuilding it.

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #339 on: October 01, 2022, 06:04:04 PM »
Being Woke is a totalitarian ideology.

Sort of. Its also incoherent. We have a human desire to believe that every tyrant or bad person is cackling evil with a master plan.

Wokists often destroy with a genuine belief that they are doing everybody a solid, and what they pervert counts as creation and will stand the test if time. and the culture and everyone as a whole are behind them.

PulpHerb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • P
  • Posts: 400
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #340 on: October 02, 2022, 11:29:46 AM »
Yes, 3.5 was technically "fully backwards compatible" to 3.0.
I have seen MUCH better efforts from 1 man teams.

Al Aho once said Awk was one of the most complex projects he wrote because it was three people (him, Brian Kernighan, and Peter Weinberger) which made design much harder. He said it was mostly accomplished by them each writing their part and only having to worry about the interfaces.  As Fred Brooks realized on OS/360, Aho saw that adding people didn't add to the quality or shorten the time after a certain point. Aho concluded three people was probably the ideal size.

I see no reason why the unity of smaller teams leading to better implementations of systems that is evident in software shouldn't apply to game systems.

PulpHerb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • P
  • Posts: 400
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #341 on: October 02, 2022, 11:36:56 AM »
Am I betting they will remain non-woke? No way!  :) Every core book release since Xanathar’s has been marching more and more left. But I’m also not claiming there is a OneDnD Agenda until there is evidence. The post I was agreeing with was stating the same thing you are with respect to what they will do with supplements and adventure paths.

I'll claim there is an evident OneD&D agenda, but it has nothing to do with woke or culture war.  It was hashed about earlier in this thread:

"To convert D&D from sporadic large purchases with less hook into purchases for next month's purchase and a disproportional distribution of expenditures born by about one in five players to a continuous small purchase via subscription purchase by 90%+ of players revenue model."

The Headquarters in Providence will tolerate woke insertions from the west coast office as long as they don't interfere with that and will encourage them if they are convinced it makes subscription more likely. 

And yes, I can convince of a theory of why woke would work. If wokeness can move D&D's revenue stream from DM's buy a new hardback every three months and players do everywhere to $5-10/month memberships used about as often as gym memberships that would be a sweet spot. The cost of the online systems would be low due to low utilization while the "look, I'm supporting $FOO" for the cost of a Starbucks would provide a strong revenue steam. I just have no access to any of the data that would be useful to evaluate that strategy.

dkabq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 558
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #342 on: October 02, 2022, 06:20:51 PM »
48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

Jaeger

  • That someone better.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #343 on: October 02, 2022, 06:55:35 PM »
48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

And they say feats are optional...

Subclass = pre-selected thematic Feat Tree.

They just have you make one choice at level 3 instead of looking at an array of options every time you would select a new "Class ability"...
"The envious are not satisfied with equality; they secretly yearn for superiority and revenge."

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: The OneDnD Agenda
« Reply #344 on: October 02, 2022, 07:02:42 PM »
48 subclasses?!? Sounds like a nightmare for a DM.

Thats about 4 per class. Thats about 1 more per class then in 5e.
For real people, suddenly all of this is a problem?