D&D (2024) Hypothesis: Playtest 7 delayed to add elements inspired by BG3

[darjr]

this doesn't surprise me, but it absolutely does disorient me.

like, i knew video games were more popular then ttrpgs by an extremely wide margin...but i've never SEEN such an obvious EXAMPLE of that. i feel like sherlock's victim from the discombobulate meme.

Add to that that 5e is the best selling version of D&D. Maybe by quite a bit. Compared to recent versions it’s kinda wildly successful. And growing. And BG3 easily beat those numbers, all of them, in a week.

Even as BG3 enters the long tail it’s possible it might be played by more people and make more money than the rpg for a while.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That's probably true, given that they hired Dan Rawson to run D&D, and his primary area of expertise and experience is converting people to digital subscriptions.

I very much doubt they're modifying 5E to resemble BG3, but only because the management layer seems to largely disconnected from specific decisions re: mechanics. They seem to be strongly connected re: tone and general approach, and it's possible they're reconsidering those, because they're absolutely at odds with BG3 (which is essentially R-rated, where WotC has been pushing D&D pretty hard towards PG, not even PG-13), but I don't really see how that would be reflected in the mechanics of a playtest.

Now, if WotC's management were a bit more on the ball, and a bit more forward-thinking, they would be looking at BG3 and thinking "Do people find this approach to mechanics, which is more permissive (and frankly has a better martial/caster balance than 5E - very much including 2024 - does), to be more attractive and fun?". And I suspect the answer for the vast majority of people who play D&D would be "Absolutely, yes, it is preferred". However, I suspect the answer for the 20K to 40K mostly-grogs who answer the survey is "No", because they're generally opposed to change, and particularly to martial classes being improved meaningfully (one of the reasons the weapon actions got a positive result was that most of them seem fairly weak, and it's clear from discussions here and elsewhere that a lot of posters just didn't grok how OP a couple of them are).

I think that the main game being PG is not really an issue, the base game should cast a wide net.
It does not prevent other takes on the material.
One thing they should pick up from BG 3 is make published combat tougher.
While I love some of the rule changes in BG3. I think the mechanics are too complex for the table.

 

[Reynard]

One thing they should pick up from BG 3 is make published combat tougher.

The problem with that is you can't save scum at the table.

While I love some of the rule changes in BG3. I think the mechanics are too complex for the table.

D&D is dead simple as it is. Adding the few BG3 mechanics still won't even put it in Pathfinder range. People will manage, and those that can't will ignore the mechanics just like they do feats. And rules in general. And the whole DMG.

 

[Vaalingrade]

All things considered, I'd be less surprised if they delayed it to remove things seen in BG3 for some reason. Though I feel confident they will remain tonedeaf to any lessons learned from it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The problem with that is you can't save scum at the table.

True, but as far as I can tell adventure encounters fall into the medium/hard levels by DMG guide lines. In my experience the DMG guide lines are on the easy side.
Explicitly stating the expected difficulty and how to make them tougher would be useful.

D&D is dead simple as it is. Adding the few BG3 mechanics still won't even put it in Pathfinder range. People will manage, and those that can't will ignore the mechanics just like they do feats. And rules in general. And the whole DMG.

The BG3 mechanics (as far as I can tell) add decision points at the table as well as extra dice rolls and we have seen from 4e that extra decision points can massively extend the time taken to resolve combat.

 

[bedir than]

Bonus Action healing spells that you can throw like grenades!

 

[Reynard]

The BG3 mechanics (as far as I can tell) add decision points at the table as well as extra dice rolls and we have seen from 4e that extra decision points can massively extend the time taken to resolve combat.

Hit point bloat made 4E combat so long, not additional decision points.

That said, making combat longer isn't inherently bad if the combat is interesting, tense and/or fun.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Hit point bloat made 4E combat so long, not additional decision points.

That said, making combat longer isn't inherently bad if the combat is interesting, tense and/or fun.

Not with some of the people I played with. Hp bloat just adds rounds. Decision points can add a lot of time as the player dithers over the options.

 

[Reynard]

Not with some of the people I played with. How bloat just adds rounds. Decision points can add a lot of time as the player dithers over the options.

I don't mind ditherers that are honestly unsure because of the tactical situation is complex, but good gawd I hate it when players have not read up on their characters and/or weren't paying attention when it wasn't their turn. It's rude.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I don't mind ditherers that are honestly unsure because of the tactical situation is complex, but good gawd I hate it when players have not read up on their characters and/or weren't paying attention when it wasn't their turn. It's rude.

Most groups I play with could not get a 4e fight done in under a hour. But could manage several 5e fights in that time.