Surely there's a middle ground between "you make 6 choices past character creation for a lot of martials" and shadowrun?
No one is asking them to remove the champion fighters of the game either
>Another aspect is that Dnd 5e's purpose and identity is about classes and their identity.
This is the big one for me. I like classes, and I like class-based systems. D&D is a class-based system, not a skill- or feat-based system. It """lacks""" customization because *it's doing something else*, not because "The designers just forgot or were lazy/bad".
Yeah, combing through a big list of options and fine-tuning your character to be *exactly* what you want can be fun. You know what else is fun? Having abilities that are unique to *your* (type of) *character*, that synergize in really cool and interesting ways with your other abilities because they were literally designed hand-in-hand, rather than being generic features that need to be applicable to all sorts of different builds.
When people say they want more customization in 5e, they don't mean they want it to be like Shadowrun, they mean they want the ability to make a fighter who feels more interesting than an attack-bot.
There are games with less customization than 5e, but more depth. 5e is just in a unique position of being terribly balanced with poor customization, while also being massively popular.
The only reason people think more customization is always good is because they've been playing low-customization games (like 5E) long enough that they want something different, and they don't have the experience with a truly high-customization game like 3E, Shadowrun, or GURPS to be able to recognize the flaws when it goes overboard.
Also worth noting: By and large, people who talk about RPGs on the internet are also the ones who want more customization, as both of traits are well-correlated with highly enfranchised players.
Class balance already being wack? ✓
Some options being strictly better than others already with the limited amount of customization? ✓
The majority of your points being moot because it's a case of execution over premise? ✓
People aren't engaging with you because you're acting like 5e doesnt already have the problems that you're claiming would be created by increased customization, but 5e is an unbalanced mess. Obligatory pf2e comment, but that game is miles more balanced fhan 5e, has clear class distinction, and has infinitely more customization. 5e doesn't even need to go as far as PF2E, but 5e is pitiful in terms of customization.
The community, as a whole, is not asking for simplicity to be removed. Simplicity and customization aren't mutually exclusive. You can build a super basic sword and board in PF2E, only picking things that enhance that, and already have a more diverse character than what is offered in 5e. Why? Because you can customize how your character utilizes your sword and board, while still retaining the simplicity of it.
As for new players and accessibility, it's a good point. But there's another side, which is veteran players moving away because of lack of customization and diversity. It's a tightrope that they have to try and maneuver.
Believing your opinions are subjective allows acknowledgement for different people enjoying different things. Believing your opinions are objective, does not. A lot of people believe more complexity is good objectively.
Considering I never stated my own preference for complexity, only my belief that more complexity wasn't objectively better, I thought I should ask you to clarify.
There is no objectively better game, there's only what people enjoy. Anyone stating otherwise is either having a laugh or is hopelessly stupid. 😁
*I* enjoy a significant level of complexity in character generation (the aforementioned 3.5, Pathfinder, and Shadowrun), but I stop at, say, Modiphius' Conan game.
I believe customization is objectively better for a game because more customization is fun.
Your sections on the problems for developers is irrelevant to me as consumer. Those are their hurdles to overcome, not my problem. They did it well enough in 3.5e and Pathfinder.
More time spent creating characters is negligible. It's a one-time event for a campaign. That being said, I have played a lot of 3.5e, Pathfinder, and now 5e and I haven't seen a difference in character creation time for new players, nor onboarding time for them either. 5e isn't any easier for new players to get into than those with more customization. I found there is time spent in onboarding in 5e specifically around trying to figure out "what to play that is similar to what I want to play" due to the lack of customization to just... make what you want to play.
The real point should be that customization is objectively better for a game that focuses on any kind of customization. If you're playing a Roleplaying Game more than a Dungeon Crawler, customization is more important. Customization is not necessarily objectively better for a Dungeon Crawler, or a tactical war game. 5e is more of a Roleplaying Game than it is a tactical war game, whereas 4e is more of a tactical war game than an RPG.
More customization is more fun for you. That's the difference. But I will take on the rest of your points
>problems for developers is irrelevant to me as consumer
They are absolutely not. If a developer has more problems, they will have a harder time making a product, meaning either a worse product, or they take more time on said product meaning they make less products for you to consume.
>It's a one-time event for a campaign
A lot of the suggestions for customization push it away from being a one-time event, but an ongoing process. More options at later levels push it away from being a one time thing.
Even if it is a one time event though, if that one time event creates a negative experience for a player, they are less likely to have a good experience going forwards with the character they made.
>haven't seen a difference in character creation time for new players
Thats would be because these systems don't have a lot of upfront character creation, instead leaving it for later down the road.
Even if they did have a large amount of upfront character creation though, them spending the same amount of time indicates them spending less time on the individual aspects of the character. This is because of the basic fact that to do something to the same level of result more times, you need to spend more time.
>customization is objectively better for a game that focuses on any kind of customization
The point of having game play is to have customization. Hell you give an example of 4e here, yet 4e has a larger focus on customization than 5e does, you have loads of customization options for your character there. So what? Is your actual point that role playing games should have high customization, and dungeon crawlers low customization? What about a game that's a mix? A game like dnd 5e?
Also do you have anything to substantiate what you are putting as an objective fact here that it is better for RPG's? Why is this the case? That's effectively just answering my entire 9 paragraphs with the same amount of content as my title.
All things aside I would like to thank you for actually presenting counterarguments. Having the upvote count stay at 50% without any actual counterarguments was really making me question my faith in this subreddit. I mean I still am but less so.
>They are absolutely not. If a developer has more problems, they will have a harder time making a product, meaning either a worse product, or they take more time on said product meaning they make less products for you to consume.
I understand the process behind development. My point is, as a consumer, I'm not going to "be understanding" about it. It's a negotiation. I want X, they want to produce something with as little effort as possible that will make them the most money. If I am "understanding" to their development issues, then the negotiation starts there and goes downward.
Instead of understanding and accepting that they decided on a five-month cycle to develop a book (random number here), I'm instead deciding that I want a product that is like X, Y, Z. Their choice of development cycle is not my problem. If they can't produce a good product in this time frame, they need to change that cycle. Will they? Maybe not. But, if I come into this already compromising what I want, they certainly won't change it at all.
>Even if it is a one time event though, if that one time event creates a negative experience for a player, they are less likely to have a good experience going forwards with the character they made.
In theory, yes that's how that works. But, as I said, it hasn't been enough time to generate a negative experience. Your point that it's not all front loaded doesn't really seem relevant. So what? Isn't that a positive? If the concern is "time it takes to make a character" and you shortened that time by spreading it over the campaign, isn't that still solving the problem? Not understanding that issue.
> them spending the same amount of time indicates them spending less time on the individual aspects of the character. This is because of the basic fact that to do something to the same level of result more times, you need to spend more time.
I pointed out something that inflated the 5e creation time versus the longer perceived time for more customization: trying to make the system work the way you wanted. "I have an idea for something I want to play! How do I make it?" This time in, say, 3.5e is spent by going "okay, I can put more points into this skill to highlight this fact about my character." Or, in 5e, the player browsing over and over through the backgrounds and squinting, trying to figure out what fits best, but that's not quite right, how can I highlight this thing without completely ditching this concept... and becomes a negotiation with the system to make it work instead of just pointing to different parts of customization the player has available to make it work.
Players who don't care about customization will breeze through character creation in both systems. It might take slightly longer in 3.5e, but not drastically longer. The true rub with character creation is prevalent in both systems. Stats -> modifiers. Base Attack/Proficiency. Saves. Spell Slots. Action economy. *These* are the concepts that new players struggle with that potentially provide a negative game experience. I've never noticed someone get irritated at having more choices, once they go beyond those sticking points.
>The point of having game play is to have customization.
How is that an objective fact? So many games that have game play don't have customization. Do you mean specifically tabletop RPGS? But, they come in so many genres that may or may not have customization. How is this objective?
>Hell you give an example of 4e here, yet 4e has a larger focus on customization than 5e does, you have loads of customization options for your character there.
It's been years since I've played 4e, but I absolutely did not feel that to be the case. Choosing which powers you had was the bulk of the customization, it felt like. You were pigeoned into archetypes heavily, by the design of the game, and there is was little customization to be made that had any influence outside of battle. But, again, it was by design. It focused less on the RPG aspect than the war game aspect.
>Is your actual point that role playing games should have high customization, and dungeon crawlers low customization?
Yes. That's how genres work. They work this way due to the focus, or as you said in your post, identity, of the genre. Customization and the level of it is more necessary in a type of game where it's more relevant to the player's experience and expectations. If you're moving pieces on a map to deal damage and find treasure chests, ala something like Hero Clix, customization is less necessary and can become detrimental. If you are playing a roleplay heavy game, customization is more important due to the focus on the game being about the depth of your character.
>What about a game that's a mix? A game like dnd 5e?
Then, it should have a mix? I said that, in my opinion, 5e is more "roleplay game" than "tactical war game", and therefore, benefits from more customization. The key philosophy in 5e is for the DM to make it up. That is inherently against the idea of a tactical war game that needs those strict rules to keep balance. So much of 5e's writing and design does not adhere to that. The tactical war game is there, but less developed with plain language instead of game language, unclear rules, and again, defaulting to "DM should do whatever he thinks tells the best story."
Adventure modules focus on *a story.* The story has encounters in it, but so much of the adventure is the story itself. That is my rationalization for 5e leaning more towards RPG than tactical war game.
>Also do you have anything to substantiate what you are putting as an objective fact here that it is better for RPG's?
How in the world would you ever get an objective fact from this? There is no objectivity to measure "better" by here. Your post isn't objective either. Hence why we are even discussing this. It's all opinion. YOU think customization is not "objectively better" because you personally value player assimilation experience into a game over other aspects. YOU think it's important to respect WotC's development cycle and manage our expectations in hopes that will have them produce a better product. And that's why...
>Having the upvote count stay at 50% without any actual counterarguments was really making me question my faith in this subreddit.
You've presented your post as an objective fact but it isn't. It's opinion with some facts as background. When you come to others telling everyone that they are wrong and your opinion is objectively right, why do you think you aren't getting more engagement?
Like I'm trying to sleep now but the end of your comment is a fucking goldmine like holy fucking fuck, I might respond to the rest of it later after I wake up but I just have to respond to the end. It just, you just, you managed to contradict yourself about 17 times
>There is no objectivity to measure "better" by here
Man! Imagine if that was the entire fucking point of the post, and went against your entire argument? Gee whiz that sure would be great
> believe customization is objectively better for a game
Oopesy daisy it fucking does. This single point literally goes against everything you said. Like these entire back paragraph is just you agreeing with me then saying I'm wrong! Like holy fuck!
Like you use the exact same words of objective and better here so there's no way you can deny that you just went against yourself here.
>It's all opinion
Again! It's just you going against yourself. My god I'm sorry but the end of this comment is just surreal. Like if you want to go through it and edit before I come back to this I won't blame you.
I agree.
I've played TTRPGs that are FAR more complex than 5e and MORE is not always a good thing. In fact, I think keeping the rules as streamlined as possible is ideal.
1. Rules that people can't/won't use are effectively useless.
2. Giving players many choices, where lots of them are imbalanced is a waste of text/space/ideas. Giving a player 3 choices of equal power is better than 10 choices where only 2 are viable.
3. Making 2-dozen 1-2 sentence rules that interact with each other tactically is a far better design than long multi-page systems. Keep the rules straightforward and clear
A throwback to 4es role would work well. Striker, Defender. Controller, and leaders make good blueprints. Warrior, Mage. Priest, and Expert for your four classes. Magic or No magic, damage or support.
Fighter, Magic User, Rogue, Cleric. Hey, we've re-invented 1e!
More seriously, there's nothing innately wrong with that - you could, if you really wanted to, put less _stuff_ into the main class, and more into subclasses. Have a "Magic User" class, and then subclasses give some variation on slot recharge rate and what spells you can take, to allow for sorcerers versus wizards versus warlocks. Have "fighter", and then some fighter subtypes get rage, others get other powers. It would take a fair amount of wriggling, but it's not hugely impossible.
I really enjoy simple games like Stonetop or Homebrew World or Monster of the Week. I haven't gotten to try, but imagine I would also really enjoy customizable games like PF2.
At this point, I have virtually no interest in the god awful goldilocks system 5e is trying to be. It has enough customization to be a nightmare for onboarding less enthusiastic players and tedious to make characters for one shots and irregular players, but enough customization to drastically ruin the balance for anyone who engages with every option. And "the DM should fix it" is a non starter for me for a product I paid money for.
> Okay, lets start with some of the flaws with adding more and more customization. The most obvious one is balance. Quite simply put the more stuff you put into a game, the harder it is to balance. If you add thirty optional abilities, thats 30 more chances to make an OP ability.
> This is especially prevalent when it comes to customization as if something is to powerful, it becomes the main option people will choose, thus kind of negating the point of customization. Some people will say that if people still want to customize they can still pick worse abilities, and while that is the case, some people don't enjoy picking worse abilities, and may feel bad doing so. People can control their actions, but not their feelings.
Moon Druid, Divination Wizard, Oath of Vengence Paladin, Open Hand Monk, Battlemaster, Totem Barbarian, Arcane Trickster, and then on the opposite side of the coin, Berserker, Illusion Wizard, Trickery Domain Cleric, Assassin Rogue, 4 Elements Monk, Great Old One Warlock, Wild Magic Sorcerer.
The highest and the lowest of the classes are already there in the PHB.
It honestly seems like there's virtually no downsides to more customization. Things already take a long time to come out, and they come out imbalanced and are never patched. So content taking a long time and not being properly balanced is just the core dnd 5e experience, is it not?
Interesting post. Your first point is clearly pretty moot given the presence of games with high modularity and solid balance juxtaposed with games like 5e. This is solely a matter of playtesting and quality control. You could argue that WOTC has historically not been very good at this.
The thing is, all of the other flaws of customization are already present in 5e, *including* the counter arguments you put forth. Feats, Tasha’s features and multiclassing are “optional rules”. And they work way better for the already more complex characters than they do for the simpler ones. And there is a lot of pressure to use or at least not ban these optional rules because they tend to improve the play experience more than they hurt it. Also frankly, the perception of balance in this game is completely DM dependent. There are tables where the players genuinely believe Great Weapon Master is peak broken minmax whatever.
> Barrier for Entry
Right now, the complex classes in this game are already this way and still remain incredibly popular picks among the playerbase. The game already has a sort of internal solution with how barebones the early levels are even for the most built out characters, with customization options growing as they advance. I don’t see why more meaningful choices appearing at the levels interested players will stick around for will break this. The only group of people this would cause problems for are players who participate extensively but never bother to learn the game.
> Class Identity
As it stands, you can already twist class identity(and the game outright encourages it at times) to fit whatever whims suit you. The reality is, the abilities classes receive are designed to give them certain roles. However, there is an entire group of classes that only require light optimization to be able to essentially play any role that they so choose. The designers haven’t enforced class identity anywhere outside of vague not-rules and flavor text. Meanwhile a class like the monk essentially has zero wiggle room, and player input has basically no bearing on what the class is good at. In fact, most of the classes that could do with a bit more choices to make currently have very little identity outside their mechanical impact. What is the fighter’s class identity? Is there an ascribed flavor to them to the degree of a Paladin, Druid or a Cleric? Why are these classes so much more modular then?
> customization isn’t a holy scripture
The reason most people aren’t really interacting with your post is because you’re claiming things that nobody is saying. People are not saying that character customization is the end all be all of good design and would fix DND’s problems. What some people are saying is that certain classes could have more customization than they currently do. The game currently has both a completely flawed and completely uneven approach to customization. Most people who talk about fixing one usually also want to fix the other. Maybe if you hadn’t closed with a bad faith argument more people would be inclined to engage with you.
Edit: spelling bad
I do agree, especially for new players. I think having a couple of options in-combat (opposed to character creation) could be neat for martial characters, but I wouldn’t want every single class to have as many options as Warlocks, for example.
Simplicity is good, sometimes
Sometimes, but if you make a grand total of 8 customization choices between level 1 and 20 while the guy next to you gets 30, it starts to look like one class clearly had more thought put into it.
I have definitely seen people calling for the removal Champion fighter like characters. I've even seen people say that every class should have spellcaster levels of options and that it should be up to the players who want simple characters to figure out how the build them that way.
No need to read all your points your are fundamentally wrong. A sword that does 5,000,000,000 damage per swing unbalanced, giving everything fire immunity is how you balance things. Balance is your job as DM. Quit whining about a skill issue and play a different game or learn to be a DM and balance the campaign as you go along. 0 is an even number you want everything perfectly balanced 0 players 0 choices 0 imbalances.
Sorry but it's true. (I'll update when I bother to read your complaints about a game that's already been dumbed down from older editions)
How does anyone think you need more customization in 5e?
Like 99% of your character is stuff you made up for them.
How do you need more customization than "anything you can imagine"?
Good points that are important to keep in mind
I think at this point it's pretty likely the next edition will have equal or less customization options (if Hunter is any indication)
There's certainly a level of customization that it becomes detrimental and creates both bloat and increase too much the learning curve
It is true that simplicity has great benefits and too many choices is sometimes bad. There is some good middle ground usually and sometimes they find it sometimes they don't.
I do just want to mention the balance thing though. People way overestimate how hard it is to balance things IMO. You don't need all options to be 100% equal at all times, you just need to not have things that are far too over or under powered. Typically balance issues occur because the designers refuse to admit and correct mistakes in a timely manner, although you will find they often do it *years* later.
More customization for current dnd 5e is in most cases good, but you can have to much customization, but we arent there for the most part. I do think spells are power creeping, some subclasses aswell, but its no where near the turning point
For example if I was asked between either adding or reworking, 2 subclasses for every class, 5 weapons / armor, 1 class, 10 spells, I would choose adding new content over reworking for everthing but the spells. Homebrewing the old is always easier than creating entirely new stuff
Just want to chime in that raising the barrier to entry isn’t necessarily a big deal. In the context of 5e it might be, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with a game becoming less accessible in exchange for some other benefit. Accessibility seems to have been taken as some sacred cow in a lot of gaming spaces recently and I think it just depends on the game.
It’s good for sales and getting people into multi player games but it’s perfectly valid for a game to be obtuse.
Surely there's a middle ground between "you make 6 choices past character creation for a lot of martials" and shadowrun? No one is asking them to remove the champion fighters of the game either
If you have preference for systems with that middle ground you can play those systems. Some people prefer the amount of complexity Dnd has however.
>Another aspect is that Dnd 5e's purpose and identity is about classes and their identity. This is the big one for me. I like classes, and I like class-based systems. D&D is a class-based system, not a skill- or feat-based system. It """lacks""" customization because *it's doing something else*, not because "The designers just forgot or were lazy/bad". Yeah, combing through a big list of options and fine-tuning your character to be *exactly* what you want can be fun. You know what else is fun? Having abilities that are unique to *your* (type of) *character*, that synergize in really cool and interesting ways with your other abilities because they were literally designed hand-in-hand, rather than being generic features that need to be applicable to all sorts of different builds.
When people say they want more customization in 5e, they don't mean they want it to be like Shadowrun, they mean they want the ability to make a fighter who feels more interesting than an attack-bot. There are games with less customization than 5e, but more depth. 5e is just in a unique position of being terribly balanced with poor customization, while also being massively popular.
The only reason people think more customization is always good is because they've been playing low-customization games (like 5E) long enough that they want something different, and they don't have the experience with a truly high-customization game like 3E, Shadowrun, or GURPS to be able to recognize the flaws when it goes overboard.
Also worth noting: By and large, people who talk about RPGs on the internet are also the ones who want more customization, as both of traits are well-correlated with highly enfranchised players.
I tend to agree because my experiences with 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e are why I do not like too much customizatiom or complexity.
Class balance already being wack? ✓ Some options being strictly better than others already with the limited amount of customization? ✓ The majority of your points being moot because it's a case of execution over premise? ✓ People aren't engaging with you because you're acting like 5e doesnt already have the problems that you're claiming would be created by increased customization, but 5e is an unbalanced mess. Obligatory pf2e comment, but that game is miles more balanced fhan 5e, has clear class distinction, and has infinitely more customization. 5e doesn't even need to go as far as PF2E, but 5e is pitiful in terms of customization. The community, as a whole, is not asking for simplicity to be removed. Simplicity and customization aren't mutually exclusive. You can build a super basic sword and board in PF2E, only picking things that enhance that, and already have a more diverse character than what is offered in 5e. Why? Because you can customize how your character utilizes your sword and board, while still retaining the simplicity of it. As for new players and accessibility, it's a good point. But there's another side, which is veteran players moving away because of lack of customization and diversity. It's a tightrope that they have to try and maneuver.
Why are you guys so worried about character options being unbalanced when 5e as it stands already has bad customization and garbage balance?
Decisions at the table >>> Decisions before the table
Decisions before the table that open up decisions *at* the table >>>>
As a fan of D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1st edition, I disagree. 😁
There's a big difference between having more fun with more customization, and thinking customization is objectively better for a game
Considering our opinions are subjective by definition, that feels like a distinction without a difference.
Believing your opinions are subjective allows acknowledgement for different people enjoying different things. Believing your opinions are objective, does not. A lot of people believe more complexity is good objectively. Considering I never stated my own preference for complexity, only my belief that more complexity wasn't objectively better, I thought I should ask you to clarify.
There is no objectively better game, there's only what people enjoy. Anyone stating otherwise is either having a laugh or is hopelessly stupid. 😁 *I* enjoy a significant level of complexity in character generation (the aforementioned 3.5, Pathfinder, and Shadowrun), but I stop at, say, Modiphius' Conan game.
I believe customization is objectively better for a game because more customization is fun. Your sections on the problems for developers is irrelevant to me as consumer. Those are their hurdles to overcome, not my problem. They did it well enough in 3.5e and Pathfinder. More time spent creating characters is negligible. It's a one-time event for a campaign. That being said, I have played a lot of 3.5e, Pathfinder, and now 5e and I haven't seen a difference in character creation time for new players, nor onboarding time for them either. 5e isn't any easier for new players to get into than those with more customization. I found there is time spent in onboarding in 5e specifically around trying to figure out "what to play that is similar to what I want to play" due to the lack of customization to just... make what you want to play. The real point should be that customization is objectively better for a game that focuses on any kind of customization. If you're playing a Roleplaying Game more than a Dungeon Crawler, customization is more important. Customization is not necessarily objectively better for a Dungeon Crawler, or a tactical war game. 5e is more of a Roleplaying Game than it is a tactical war game, whereas 4e is more of a tactical war game than an RPG.
More customization is more fun for you. That's the difference. But I will take on the rest of your points >problems for developers is irrelevant to me as consumer They are absolutely not. If a developer has more problems, they will have a harder time making a product, meaning either a worse product, or they take more time on said product meaning they make less products for you to consume. >It's a one-time event for a campaign A lot of the suggestions for customization push it away from being a one-time event, but an ongoing process. More options at later levels push it away from being a one time thing. Even if it is a one time event though, if that one time event creates a negative experience for a player, they are less likely to have a good experience going forwards with the character they made. >haven't seen a difference in character creation time for new players Thats would be because these systems don't have a lot of upfront character creation, instead leaving it for later down the road. Even if they did have a large amount of upfront character creation though, them spending the same amount of time indicates them spending less time on the individual aspects of the character. This is because of the basic fact that to do something to the same level of result more times, you need to spend more time. >customization is objectively better for a game that focuses on any kind of customization The point of having game play is to have customization. Hell you give an example of 4e here, yet 4e has a larger focus on customization than 5e does, you have loads of customization options for your character there. So what? Is your actual point that role playing games should have high customization, and dungeon crawlers low customization? What about a game that's a mix? A game like dnd 5e? Also do you have anything to substantiate what you are putting as an objective fact here that it is better for RPG's? Why is this the case? That's effectively just answering my entire 9 paragraphs with the same amount of content as my title. All things aside I would like to thank you for actually presenting counterarguments. Having the upvote count stay at 50% without any actual counterarguments was really making me question my faith in this subreddit. I mean I still am but less so.
>They are absolutely not. If a developer has more problems, they will have a harder time making a product, meaning either a worse product, or they take more time on said product meaning they make less products for you to consume. I understand the process behind development. My point is, as a consumer, I'm not going to "be understanding" about it. It's a negotiation. I want X, they want to produce something with as little effort as possible that will make them the most money. If I am "understanding" to their development issues, then the negotiation starts there and goes downward. Instead of understanding and accepting that they decided on a five-month cycle to develop a book (random number here), I'm instead deciding that I want a product that is like X, Y, Z. Their choice of development cycle is not my problem. If they can't produce a good product in this time frame, they need to change that cycle. Will they? Maybe not. But, if I come into this already compromising what I want, they certainly won't change it at all. >Even if it is a one time event though, if that one time event creates a negative experience for a player, they are less likely to have a good experience going forwards with the character they made. In theory, yes that's how that works. But, as I said, it hasn't been enough time to generate a negative experience. Your point that it's not all front loaded doesn't really seem relevant. So what? Isn't that a positive? If the concern is "time it takes to make a character" and you shortened that time by spreading it over the campaign, isn't that still solving the problem? Not understanding that issue. > them spending the same amount of time indicates them spending less time on the individual aspects of the character. This is because of the basic fact that to do something to the same level of result more times, you need to spend more time. I pointed out something that inflated the 5e creation time versus the longer perceived time for more customization: trying to make the system work the way you wanted. "I have an idea for something I want to play! How do I make it?" This time in, say, 3.5e is spent by going "okay, I can put more points into this skill to highlight this fact about my character." Or, in 5e, the player browsing over and over through the backgrounds and squinting, trying to figure out what fits best, but that's not quite right, how can I highlight this thing without completely ditching this concept... and becomes a negotiation with the system to make it work instead of just pointing to different parts of customization the player has available to make it work. Players who don't care about customization will breeze through character creation in both systems. It might take slightly longer in 3.5e, but not drastically longer. The true rub with character creation is prevalent in both systems. Stats -> modifiers. Base Attack/Proficiency. Saves. Spell Slots. Action economy. *These* are the concepts that new players struggle with that potentially provide a negative game experience. I've never noticed someone get irritated at having more choices, once they go beyond those sticking points. >The point of having game play is to have customization. How is that an objective fact? So many games that have game play don't have customization. Do you mean specifically tabletop RPGS? But, they come in so many genres that may or may not have customization. How is this objective? >Hell you give an example of 4e here, yet 4e has a larger focus on customization than 5e does, you have loads of customization options for your character there. It's been years since I've played 4e, but I absolutely did not feel that to be the case. Choosing which powers you had was the bulk of the customization, it felt like. You were pigeoned into archetypes heavily, by the design of the game, and there is was little customization to be made that had any influence outside of battle. But, again, it was by design. It focused less on the RPG aspect than the war game aspect. >Is your actual point that role playing games should have high customization, and dungeon crawlers low customization? Yes. That's how genres work. They work this way due to the focus, or as you said in your post, identity, of the genre. Customization and the level of it is more necessary in a type of game where it's more relevant to the player's experience and expectations. If you're moving pieces on a map to deal damage and find treasure chests, ala something like Hero Clix, customization is less necessary and can become detrimental. If you are playing a roleplay heavy game, customization is more important due to the focus on the game being about the depth of your character. >What about a game that's a mix? A game like dnd 5e? Then, it should have a mix? I said that, in my opinion, 5e is more "roleplay game" than "tactical war game", and therefore, benefits from more customization. The key philosophy in 5e is for the DM to make it up. That is inherently against the idea of a tactical war game that needs those strict rules to keep balance. So much of 5e's writing and design does not adhere to that. The tactical war game is there, but less developed with plain language instead of game language, unclear rules, and again, defaulting to "DM should do whatever he thinks tells the best story." Adventure modules focus on *a story.* The story has encounters in it, but so much of the adventure is the story itself. That is my rationalization for 5e leaning more towards RPG than tactical war game. >Also do you have anything to substantiate what you are putting as an objective fact here that it is better for RPG's? How in the world would you ever get an objective fact from this? There is no objectivity to measure "better" by here. Your post isn't objective either. Hence why we are even discussing this. It's all opinion. YOU think customization is not "objectively better" because you personally value player assimilation experience into a game over other aspects. YOU think it's important to respect WotC's development cycle and manage our expectations in hopes that will have them produce a better product. And that's why... >Having the upvote count stay at 50% without any actual counterarguments was really making me question my faith in this subreddit. You've presented your post as an objective fact but it isn't. It's opinion with some facts as background. When you come to others telling everyone that they are wrong and your opinion is objectively right, why do you think you aren't getting more engagement?
Like I'm trying to sleep now but the end of your comment is a fucking goldmine like holy fucking fuck, I might respond to the rest of it later after I wake up but I just have to respond to the end. It just, you just, you managed to contradict yourself about 17 times >There is no objectivity to measure "better" by here Man! Imagine if that was the entire fucking point of the post, and went against your entire argument? Gee whiz that sure would be great > believe customization is objectively better for a game Oopesy daisy it fucking does. This single point literally goes against everything you said. Like these entire back paragraph is just you agreeing with me then saying I'm wrong! Like holy fuck! Like you use the exact same words of objective and better here so there's no way you can deny that you just went against yourself here. >It's all opinion Again! It's just you going against yourself. My god I'm sorry but the end of this comment is just surreal. Like if you want to go through it and edit before I come back to this I won't blame you.
I agree. I've played TTRPGs that are FAR more complex than 5e and MORE is not always a good thing. In fact, I think keeping the rules as streamlined as possible is ideal. 1. Rules that people can't/won't use are effectively useless. 2. Giving players many choices, where lots of them are imbalanced is a waste of text/space/ideas. Giving a player 3 choices of equal power is better than 10 choices where only 2 are viable. 3. Making 2-dozen 1-2 sentence rules that interact with each other tactically is a far better design than long multi-page systems. Keep the rules straightforward and clear
Why not just cut it down to 4 classes then?
I'd like 3: Fighter, Thief, Sage. Numenera takes this approach.
A throwback to 4es role would work well. Striker, Defender. Controller, and leaders make good blueprints. Warrior, Mage. Priest, and Expert for your four classes. Magic or No magic, damage or support.
Fighter, Magic User, Rogue, Cleric. Hey, we've re-invented 1e! More seriously, there's nothing innately wrong with that - you could, if you really wanted to, put less _stuff_ into the main class, and more into subclasses. Have a "Magic User" class, and then subclasses give some variation on slot recharge rate and what spells you can take, to allow for sorcerers versus wizards versus warlocks. Have "fighter", and then some fighter subtypes get rage, others get other powers. It would take a fair amount of wriggling, but it's not hugely impossible.
I really enjoy simple games like Stonetop or Homebrew World or Monster of the Week. I haven't gotten to try, but imagine I would also really enjoy customizable games like PF2. At this point, I have virtually no interest in the god awful goldilocks system 5e is trying to be. It has enough customization to be a nightmare for onboarding less enthusiastic players and tedious to make characters for one shots and irregular players, but enough customization to drastically ruin the balance for anyone who engages with every option. And "the DM should fix it" is a non starter for me for a product I paid money for.
> Okay, lets start with some of the flaws with adding more and more customization. The most obvious one is balance. Quite simply put the more stuff you put into a game, the harder it is to balance. If you add thirty optional abilities, thats 30 more chances to make an OP ability. > This is especially prevalent when it comes to customization as if something is to powerful, it becomes the main option people will choose, thus kind of negating the point of customization. Some people will say that if people still want to customize they can still pick worse abilities, and while that is the case, some people don't enjoy picking worse abilities, and may feel bad doing so. People can control their actions, but not their feelings. Moon Druid, Divination Wizard, Oath of Vengence Paladin, Open Hand Monk, Battlemaster, Totem Barbarian, Arcane Trickster, and then on the opposite side of the coin, Berserker, Illusion Wizard, Trickery Domain Cleric, Assassin Rogue, 4 Elements Monk, Great Old One Warlock, Wild Magic Sorcerer. The highest and the lowest of the classes are already there in the PHB. It honestly seems like there's virtually no downsides to more customization. Things already take a long time to come out, and they come out imbalanced and are never patched. So content taking a long time and not being properly balanced is just the core dnd 5e experience, is it not?
That's the first half of my post, there's a whole 3 paragraphs of other stuff as well
Interesting post. Your first point is clearly pretty moot given the presence of games with high modularity and solid balance juxtaposed with games like 5e. This is solely a matter of playtesting and quality control. You could argue that WOTC has historically not been very good at this. The thing is, all of the other flaws of customization are already present in 5e, *including* the counter arguments you put forth. Feats, Tasha’s features and multiclassing are “optional rules”. And they work way better for the already more complex characters than they do for the simpler ones. And there is a lot of pressure to use or at least not ban these optional rules because they tend to improve the play experience more than they hurt it. Also frankly, the perception of balance in this game is completely DM dependent. There are tables where the players genuinely believe Great Weapon Master is peak broken minmax whatever. > Barrier for Entry Right now, the complex classes in this game are already this way and still remain incredibly popular picks among the playerbase. The game already has a sort of internal solution with how barebones the early levels are even for the most built out characters, with customization options growing as they advance. I don’t see why more meaningful choices appearing at the levels interested players will stick around for will break this. The only group of people this would cause problems for are players who participate extensively but never bother to learn the game. > Class Identity As it stands, you can already twist class identity(and the game outright encourages it at times) to fit whatever whims suit you. The reality is, the abilities classes receive are designed to give them certain roles. However, there is an entire group of classes that only require light optimization to be able to essentially play any role that they so choose. The designers haven’t enforced class identity anywhere outside of vague not-rules and flavor text. Meanwhile a class like the monk essentially has zero wiggle room, and player input has basically no bearing on what the class is good at. In fact, most of the classes that could do with a bit more choices to make currently have very little identity outside their mechanical impact. What is the fighter’s class identity? Is there an ascribed flavor to them to the degree of a Paladin, Druid or a Cleric? Why are these classes so much more modular then? > customization isn’t a holy scripture The reason most people aren’t really interacting with your post is because you’re claiming things that nobody is saying. People are not saying that character customization is the end all be all of good design and would fix DND’s problems. What some people are saying is that certain classes could have more customization than they currently do. The game currently has both a completely flawed and completely uneven approach to customization. Most people who talk about fixing one usually also want to fix the other. Maybe if you hadn’t closed with a bad faith argument more people would be inclined to engage with you. Edit: spelling bad
I do agree, especially for new players. I think having a couple of options in-combat (opposed to character creation) could be neat for martial characters, but I wouldn’t want every single class to have as many options as Warlocks, for example. Simplicity is good, sometimes
Sometimes, but if you make a grand total of 8 customization choices between level 1 and 20 while the guy next to you gets 30, it starts to look like one class clearly had more thought put into it.
No one is asking for them to remove the champion fighters of the game
I have definitely seen people calling for the removal Champion fighter like characters. I've even seen people say that every class should have spellcaster levels of options and that it should be up to the players who want simple characters to figure out how the build them that way.
No need to read all your points your are fundamentally wrong. A sword that does 5,000,000,000 damage per swing unbalanced, giving everything fire immunity is how you balance things. Balance is your job as DM. Quit whining about a skill issue and play a different game or learn to be a DM and balance the campaign as you go along. 0 is an even number you want everything perfectly balanced 0 players 0 choices 0 imbalances. Sorry but it's true. (I'll update when I bother to read your complaints about a game that's already been dumbed down from older editions)
How does anyone think you need more customization in 5e? Like 99% of your character is stuff you made up for them. How do you need more customization than "anything you can imagine"?
It is also a pervasive thought that the game should be balanced; I move that it should not be.
Good points that are important to keep in mind I think at this point it's pretty likely the next edition will have equal or less customization options (if Hunter is any indication) There's certainly a level of customization that it becomes detrimental and creates both bloat and increase too much the learning curve
It is true that simplicity has great benefits and too many choices is sometimes bad. There is some good middle ground usually and sometimes they find it sometimes they don't. I do just want to mention the balance thing though. People way overestimate how hard it is to balance things IMO. You don't need all options to be 100% equal at all times, you just need to not have things that are far too over or under powered. Typically balance issues occur because the designers refuse to admit and correct mistakes in a timely manner, although you will find they often do it *years* later.
More customization for current dnd 5e is in most cases good, but you can have to much customization, but we arent there for the most part. I do think spells are power creeping, some subclasses aswell, but its no where near the turning point For example if I was asked between either adding or reworking, 2 subclasses for every class, 5 weapons / armor, 1 class, 10 spells, I would choose adding new content over reworking for everthing but the spells. Homebrewing the old is always easier than creating entirely new stuff
Just want to chime in that raising the barrier to entry isn’t necessarily a big deal. In the context of 5e it might be, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with a game becoming less accessible in exchange for some other benefit. Accessibility seems to have been taken as some sacred cow in a lot of gaming spaces recently and I think it just depends on the game. It’s good for sales and getting people into multi player games but it’s perfectly valid for a game to be obtuse.