D&D 5e is not balanced around a 6-8 encounter, 2 SR day.

[KorvinStarmast]

That I shouldn't have needed to ask is my point.

That looks to me like a toxic attitude. Really. I think that I must be missing some context here. Whatever we may agree or disagree on (in a general sense) you've never come across to me that way.

I am scratching my head here.

[MaxWilson]

That looks to me like a toxic attitude. Really. I think that I must be missing some context here. Whatever we may agree or disagree on (in a general sense) you've never come across to me that way.

I am scratching my head here.

I suspect part of the problem may be the fact that you initially said "have you read the rules?" and then thought better and edited it to "You have read the rules," but by that point Pex had already seen it and started writing his response, probably never even saw the edit. I'm sure you can see how the original phrasing could cause friction, and that's why you changed it, but too late!

Of course I'm only speculating.

[Pex]

That looks to me like a toxic attitude. Really. I think that I must be missing some context here. Whatever we may agree or disagree on (in a general sense) you've never come across to me that way.

I am scratching my head here.

It's simply a bother I have about 5E in general. My beef with skill use is a more specific example. The rules of the game change on me depending on who is DM that day. Not house rules, the fundamental rules of how to play the game. This DM says great weapon style can work on smites. That DM doesn't. This DM says owl familiars can Help for advantage. That DM doesn't. This DM says I can climb a tree because I want to. That DM doesn't. Mix and match among the DMs. I never know what the rule will be until it becomes applicable at the gaming moment. It doesn't matter if it's my character or someone else's because affecting someone else affects the party. This was never the case in Pathfinder, 3E, 2E, Ars Magica, GURPS, Rolemaster, Fantasy Warhammer for all the RPGs I played with more than one DM. The rules were always the same regardless of DM except for house rules the DM specifically told the players.

[diplomancer]

It's simply a bother I have about 5E in general. My beef with skill use is a more specific example. The rules of the game change on me depending on who is DM that day. Not house rules, the fundamental rules of how to play the game. This DM says great weapon style can work on smites. That DM doesn't. This DM says owl familiars can Help for advantage. That DM doesn't. This DM says I can climb a tree because I want to. That DM doesn't. Mix and match among the DMs. I never know what the rule will be until it becomes applicable at the gaming moment. It doesn't matter if it's my character or someone else's because affecting someone else affects the party. This was never the case in Pathfinder, 3E, 2E, Ars Magica, GURPS, Rolemaster, Fantasy Warhammer for all the RPGs I played with more than one DM. The rules were always the same regardless of DM except for house rules the DM specifically told the players.

Are those DMs you have a problem with experienced DMs? Because one good thing 5e did was to bring a lot of enthusiastic new people into the game, but who simply don't know the rules, expectations, and assumptions. I've heard lots of people DM without ever reading the DMG (or even carefully read the PHB). Obviously, this creates problems. I think the greatest fault of 5e and WotC in that regard is actually pretending that 5e is "simple".

In my experience, newbie DMs tend to be more set in their "rulings", and more experienced DMs, even if they don't know a particular rule, will be more willing to accept it if a player points it out (if not immediately, at least later on after some time for reflexion). Newbie DMs are more afraid of "losing control" of the game, and so tend to be more set in their ways.

Of the 3 gripes you mentioned, I think 1 of them is not a ruling but a strict houserule (familiars can't take the Help action to give advantage in combat; the book is quite clear that, yes, they can), one is "in-between" (the climbing a tree; the problem here is that unless your DM is Tolkien, he will not spend a long time describing trees; and some trees are simply easy to climb and should require no roll, and other trees can be quite hard to climb and if you are not skilled you will have a hard time; trees are simply not uniform. So, if a player wants to climb "a tree", meaning any nearby tree to get a better view or to hide, it would normally require no roll; but if a player wants to climb ONE particular tree, that tree might require a roll), and one is definitely a ruling (the smite with great-weapon style). I'd say asking about the latter one before deciding on a character is definitely a player responsibility.

[Democratus]

This was never the case in Pathfinder, 3E, 2E, Ars Magica, GURPS, Rolemaster, Fantasy Warhammer for all the RPGs I played with more than one DM. The rules were always the same regardless of DM except for house rules the DM specifically told the players.

I've played all those RPGs at conventions, and they were drastically different with every DM who ran them. And the differences were due to different interpretations of the rules as written. GURPS and Pathfinder (1e), in particular, are very loosely written and easy to interpret in many different ways.

This is just something that happens with games written by humans and run by humans.

[Willie the Duck]

This was never the case in Pathfinder, 3E, 2E, Ars Magica, GURPS, Rolemaster, Fantasy Warhammer for all the RPGs I played with more than one DM. The rules were always the same regardless of DM except for house rules the DM specifically told the players.

And again, I am in utter rapt amazement that you didn't have this problem with any of the above (2e in particular, but honestly all of them).

[KorvinStarmast]

It's simply a bother I have about 5E in general. My beef with skill use is a more specific example. The rules of the game change on me depending on who is DM that day. Not house rules, the fundamental rules of how to play the game. This DM says great weapon style can work on smites. That DM doesn't. This DM says owl familiars can Help for advantage. That DM doesn't. This DM says I can climb a tree because I want to. That DM doesn't. Mix and match among the DMs. I never know what the rule will be until it becomes applicable at the gaming moment. It doesn't matter if it's my character or someone else's because affecting someone else affects the party. This was never the case in Pathfinder, 3E, 2E, Ars Magica, GURPS, Rolemaster, Fantasy Warhammer for all the RPGs I played with more than one DM. The rules were always the same regardless of DM except for house rules the DM specifically told the players.

Ah, OK, so maybe it's this: too often the rules themselves are in conflict with one another, moreso than you having a conflict with the DM? What came across to me as toxic was the latter thought, and I think I misunderstood what you were pointing at. Am I reading you more clearly?

I think you are not the only one who has noticed that the rules themselves could have used another edit / scrub before going live.

For diplomancer:

I think the greatest fault of 5e and WotC in that regard is actually pretending that 5e is "simple".

Yes, and not putting in a sample encounter up front in the DMG and as an appendix to the PHB. (OD&D and AD&D 1e had a few pages of "here's what an encounter looks like!" in their rule books). So too did Basic and B/X.

Why didn't they do that for this edition? No idea.

@Max: what I was trying to describe as toxic was an idea that "I shouldn't have to ask" being a case of not being willing to engage in dialogue with a DM, which struck me as very odd given Pex' long experience with the game.
I surely saw something there that wasn't there.
(Pex and I share quite a few positions in common on this game, one of them being "There is nothing wrong with having an 18 in a stat at first level").

[Pex]

And again, I am in utter rapt amazement that you didn't have this problem with any of the above (2e in particular, but honestly all of them).

It's true, Anything that was different was a specific house rule the DM mentioned up front. For example, one Pathfinder campaign had all healing outside of combat be maximized. Never in any other Pathfinder game, but it was a known factor going in. My college group came up with our own mana system for 2E magic. 2E games out of college used the normal rules. I knew the difference going in. In 5E it's all up in the air how a particular DM will interpret something. For the exact same interaction of rules two different DMs come up with different answers. Not a house rule, a ruling at the moment it happens in Session Number greater than 0.

I know now what specific questions to ask for my class abilities in 5E, but I resent having to do so. When I didn't know the problem was worse, such as being denied owl familiar Help. I don't yet ask DMs at Session 0 how trees work. Even if I better I shouldn't have to, because then I'd also have to ask about climbing walls, knowing about monster abilities, identifying poisons and diseases and non-magic medicines to cure them, and there will always be something I forget to ask until too late not necessarily about a skill in particular.

[Willie the Duck]

It's true, Anything that was different was a specific house rule the DM mentioned up front. For example, one Pathfinder campaign had all healing outside of combat be maximized. Never in any other Pathfinder game, but it was a known factor going in. My college group came up with our own mana system for 2E magic. 2E games out of college used the normal rules. I knew the difference going in. In 5E it's all up in the air how a particular DM will interpret something. For the exact same interaction of rules two different DMs come up with different answers. Not a house rule, a ruling at the moment it happens in Session Number greater than 0.

This has been discussed a million times from sunrise, but there is no 'the normal rules' for 2e. There are 9 or 10 instances of 'as determined by the DM' or 'as determined by circumstance' in the PHB, massively multiple instances of the same or similar phrasing in the DMG, a half dozen explicit references to there being no formula for something, and repeated declarations that a DM must determine for themselves how the game rules will play out. If your 2e games played out the same way, it is through convergent decision-making, not because the game was built with more rigorous and less ambiguous rules.

As Democratus points out, the other systems are the same. GURPS in particular, while exceedingly good for knowing the exact modifier for shooting an opponent while the two of you are riding on opposite moving vehicles with a 30 mph relative velocity, 100 meters apart, with a 20 mph headwind, at dusk, leaves many of the non-physical skills, and the resolution thereof, up to the GM. Pathfinder I don't know and D&D3e I'll grant is very definitive (in my mind, 'clear, exhaustive, and terrible,' but we can disagree on that).

Clearly you have had some terrible experiences with 5e, and I don't dismiss that experience. Whether 'game playout should not change between groups' is even something to which systems ought aspire I'll leave to those who have the time to put forth decent arguments. However, I strongly feel that your view that other systems are better at this thing than 5e is at least somewhat swayed by a non-representatively uniform experience not actually supported by the texts of the other systems rule text.

[Pex]

My experience with 5E is not horrible or else I wouldn't be playing it. It is simply a bother, but what bothers me more is people telling me I shouldn't be having the bother I do or I'm wrong to have it. Ignoring house rules, for all those RPGs the rules of how the game is played do not change from DM to DM. Nothing changes about the 2E paladin. Nothing changes about 3E skills. Nothing changes about Pathfinder feats. Nothing changes about Rolemaster charts. Nothing changes about GURPS roll under or equal your skill value on 3d6. Nothing changes about Ars Magica formula to calculate your spell value. (New editions may change the game math of the RPGs, but that's besides the point.) From game to game to game the rules are the same. Not so in 5E. How familiars work change, How smites work change. The ability to climb a tree changes. How some feats like Shield Master and Magic Initiate work change. Something else I can't think of right now changes. There's always something.

[Tanarii]

3e and 4e were full of precise jargon, and interpretations of how basic things in the PHB worked (like stealth) were wildly all over the place. The WotC forums were chock full of rules debates on how various rules worked, especially in interaction with other rules. No two tables played the same way. 5e (overall) has less debates because the answer is the same as 3e and 4e, we just get to it quicker: ask your DM. The difference is a DM and players know that going in, they don't think there is always a 'right answer'.

I didn't spend a lot of time online during 2e, so I probably thought how lots of rules worked was clear. Of course, coming from 1e it seemed like a rules house cleaning. OTOH I've felt that way about each edition on release, and to some degree it's true, because the rules have expanded like crazy in splats as the edition progressed.

(This is no comment on having skill DC tables. I agree that would probably result in more consistency. I just feel it would hurt the game more than help it.)

[Willie the Duck]

Ignoring house rules, for all those RPGs the rules of how the game is played do not change from DM to DM. Nothing changes about the 2E paladin. Nothing changes about 3E skills. Nothing changes about Pathfinder feats. Nothing changes about Rolemaster charts. Nothing changes about GURPS roll under or equal your skill value on 3d6. Nothing changes about Ars Magica formula to calculate your spell value. (New editions may change the game math of the RPGs, but that's besides the point.) From game to game to game the rules are the same.

That is quite literally not true. Random example, 2E Rules for swimming (PHB, p. 120) "When the DM determines the swimming ability of character, the decision should be based on his campaign. If the campaign is centered around a large body of water, or if a character grew up near the sea, chances are good that the character knows how to swim. However, being a sailor does not guarantee that a character can swim." (remember that both the non-weapon proficiency system and the secondary skill system are optional add-on rules). So the basic question of whether your paladin lives or dies if they fall off a boat is going to differ from DM to DM and campaign to campaign. Even if they do get to swim in a given circumstance, how likely they are to survive an extended swimming experience is going to be completely dependent upon DM fiat. "If the seas are choppy, a Constitution check should be made every hour spent swimming, regardless of the character's Constitution. Rough seas can require more frequent checks; heavy seas or storms may require a check every round. The DM may decide that adverse conditions cause a character's Constitution score to drop more rapidly than 1 point per hour. " Once your paladin makes it to ground and completes the rest of their adventuring, the XP they gain will be dependent upon the DM (DMG, p. 47) "The other group award is that earned for the completion of an adventure. This award is determined by the DM, based on the adventure's difficulty. There is no formula to determine the size of this award, since too many variables can come into play" (then some subjective guidelines, mostly providing an upper cap). They seemed rather insistent on this part pertaining to XP, referencing twice in the first paragraph of the Experience section that there was no universal formula for XP determination. "This chapter contains instructions for determining specific experience awards. It also gives guidelines about awarding experience in general. However, it does not provide
absolute mathematical formulas for calculating experience in every situation. Awarding experience points (XP) is one of the DM's most difficult jobs. The job is difficult because there are only a few rules (and a lot of guidelines) for the DM to rely on. The DM must learn nearly everything he knows
about experience points from running game sessions. There. is no magical formula or die roll to determine if he is doing the right or wrong thing. Only time, instinct, and player reactions will tell." Same with Treasure "The DM wants each magical treasure, no matter how small, to feel special, but at the same time he must be able to balance the pain of its acquisition against the reward. This is not a thing the DM can learn through formulae or tables. It takes time and judgment"
Further examples: Polymorph any object: "When it is cast in order to change other objects, the duration of the spell will depend on how radical a change it is from the original state to its enchanted state, as well as how different it is in size. This will be determined by your Dungeon Master [plus guidelines, but many of them subjective]" Speak with Animals: "If the animal is friendly or of the same general alignment as the priest, there is a possibility that the animal will do some favor or service for the priest. This possibility is determined by the DM." Illusions in general: "An Illusion pell, therefore, depends on its believability. Believability is determined by the situation and a saving throw." Cure disease: "The affliction rapidly disappears thereafter, making the cured creature whole and well in from one tum to 10 days, depending on the type of disuse and the stale of its advancement when the cure took place. (The DM must adjudicate these conditions.)"

GURPS is another great counter example. Yes the roll under skill value on 3d6 model is well established, but outside of combat and physical interaction skills, exactly what modifiers to add, or more importantly what a successfull skill check will do are largely undefined. 4e might have fixed some of this, but I know in 3e a character with heavy point dedication in Administration, Psychology, Economics, Performance, Bard (public speaking in 4e), Biology, and Observation is going to have a set of abilities almost completely constrained by how their GM views each of these skills and what the do or do not allow. Secondly, and admittedly this is social not rules-text, but -- I don't know if it's actually in the game marketing or not, but one of the primary arguments GURPS's fans make about why it isn't unplayably complex is that it is meant as a toolkit, wherein each GM/group only uses the parts they consider important and jettison the rest. Now, that's not the game rules of course, but the people who play it. However, if that means you won't be able to go to differing gaming groups and get the same experience, I'm not sure that your apparent goals will be met.

3e and 4e were full of precise jargon, and interpretations of how basic things in the PHB worked (like stealth) were wildly all over the place. The WotC forums were chock full of rules debates on how various rules worked, especially in interaction with other rules. No two tables played the same way. 5e (overall) has less debates because the answer is the same as 3e and 4e, we just get to it quicker: ask your DM. The difference is a DM and players know that going in, they don't think there is always a 'right answer'.

That was my experience with the matter. Sure there are nice clean tables of DCs for basic physical task resolution skill checks (and encumbrance and max press were rolled into one system, etc.), but stealth, vision, held actions and other case-whens, and so on were just as murky and poorly defined.

I didn't spend a lot of time online during 2e, so I probably thought how lots of rules worked was clear. Of course, coming from 1e it seemed like a rules house cleaning. OTOH I've felt that way about each edition on release, and to some degree it's true, because the rules have expanded like crazy in splats as the edition progressed.

At the most basic level, 2e clears out some rather obvious ambiguous places. 1e's initiative may have a technically correct single interpretation (I remember the debates on Dragonsfoot, do not recall if I was convinced one way or the other), but if you can't even get a majority of uber-AD&D pedants 30 years later to agree, then perhaps it's best that 2e came along and simplified it. Likewise stuff like rolling bards into the basic class progression. That said, it is still the same exception-based and new-subsystem-as-needed base engine that AD&D ran on. Apparently Lorraine W. wanted backwards compatibility over other concerns, which I think that it was a bit of a wasted opportunity. I think 2e would have been a great time to try some of the basic design conceits we got with 3e, including things like a generalized resolution mechanic or the like. 2e does, however, wear its role as a 'make this what you want it to be' aesthetic on its sleeve, complete with large sections under optional banners and the like. That I really appreciate.

(This is no comment on having skill DC tables. I agree that would probably result in more consistency. I just feel it would hurt the game more than help it.)

Yeah, honestly I don't really have a problem with Skill DC lists (other than I don't think that the common examples of 3e/4e/pf are actually good, and 3e's helping keep people who want to use not-magic accomplish anything on a different --lower-- playing field than even 2nd level spells), only that I think it creates a false sense of rigor, even though it's really just the tip of the iceberg.

[Pex]

In 2E: Have the Non Weapon Proficiency? Yes: Roll under ability score - # as written. If succeed do thing. No: You can't do it. Every DM I played with. For class ability just do it.
In GURPS: Thing needed to be done. Roll less than or equal your skill. If succeed it's done. Every DM I played with.
In Rolemaster: Want to do something. Roll percentile. DM consults chart and gives results. Every DM I played with.
In Ars Magica: Want to do something. Roll 1d10 and add appropriate character sheet number to get a target number. Roll a 0 it's a botch. Every DM I played with. It's been a while. I remember how you increase your skills but don't remember if there are target number tables or it's DM fiat. If it's DM fiat c'est la vie. I know there are target numbers for spells.
For Fantasy Warhammer it is more a blur now. I remember the character sheet. I didn't really enjoy the game that much, so I'll drop this.
In 3E/Pathfinder: Feat allows This. Class ability does that. DC tables give examples of what you can do, and you can Take 10/20. Every DM I played with.
In 5E: Want to do a skill? DC is whatever the DM feels like. Want to use a class ability or feat? How it works depends on how DM interprets the rules.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Spoiler

Show

Except they were not asking for an improvement to dnd but a change that is neither an improvement nor a downgrade but making it be a different system guaranteed to anger many dnd players.
It is more akin to saying "I dislike my government and I think there should be a revolution in my government just so it fits more my preference instead of me moving to a neighbouring government that fits better my preferences"
No they can not make the creator of the game change the game since the creator already had bad experiences specifically about changing what this player wanted to change. They should instead either make their own changes at their table or pick up another game.

Some people just like a resource management game and plays dnd should they be made unhappy so that the players that prefers not having resource management game and somehow plays dnd and does not want to do the changes at their own table are happier?
There is no point into that unless those who dislikes resource management and for some reason are physically unable to switch to another system are an overwhelming majority.
Even then it is a bad move for the company because the players which disliked resource management were already playing the game for some reason and they were likely to stay because of "being unable to play another game" so financially it is a bad idea to decide to cater to them and potentially lose players they already had(those who liked resource management).

A company role is not maximising the happiness of a random player nor maximising the average happiness of the players but just to gain as much money as possible.
So those who complains about the main roots of the system the developers made are not bringing anything unless they prove that more new people would come if they changed the thing than the number of lost players.
So by saying your personal opinion as someone who plays dnd about what the company should do to please you then you are bringing information that does not interest the company since you are already a client even if it is because you are forced at gun point to play a game with traits you do not want.

I'm baffled by this argument. Not by the general thrust—I'm very familiar with that—but the details.

For instance: Your general argument is that I'm just arguing that D&D should match my preferences rather than someone else's, but the change would sacrifice what that someone likes about D&D, so it would just be a zero sum change. Alright, that's internally-consistent...but it clashes with the claim that my change would be a downgrade. If the way the game works isn't just a matter of preference and some rules are better or worse than each other, you'd need to actually argue why resource management gameplay is better. Which you don't.

What makes it worse is the political analogy, which is both stupid (while staying within forum rules, not all possible political systems actually exist and most people can't just casually emigrate to another country) and clashes with the argument about the game because the two are vastly different in scope. I'm not sure if it would be worse to treat gaming with the level of importance associated with politics, or to treat politics with the level of frivolity associated with gaming.

"They" refers to WoTC, which is a singular entity where it's comprised. (It's actually a subsection of Hasbro). We all know it wasn't just a single person that came up with the entirety of D&D 5e, but that doesn't mean that what they officially say isn't indicative of the organization's opinions.

The entire point I made is that WotC isn't actually a sapient entity capable of disclosing its thoughts to anyone.

And are you accusing WoTC of Fraud? Being purposefully deceitful to sell their products better?

Fraud has a very specific legal definition. This wouldn't qualify as fraud any more than a deodorant ad showing semi-clothed women throwing themselves at the guy using it.
I'm accusing WotC of marketing.

Having resources to manage does not make resource management important in all cases. If you're given an abundance of resource, more than you need, than the management of those resources are hardly important. Gold and Carrying Capacity are types of resources, but the management of those resources may be unneeded in certain systems, 5e included. The existence of HP, Spell Slots, Charges, and ammunition does not mean these resources must be managed. If your character is never threatened with an attack, HP is unneeded.

But I do think resource management is an important part of 5e. I'm just unwilling to use any assumptions to form any conclusion, especially since we don't have any real, definitive proof that such assumptions will always be correct. Assumptions are not used for general conclusions. They're made to simplify specific scenarios.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You admit that you think resource management is important to D&D, but because there are theoretical scenarios where it might not be, you refuse to make any assumptions on matter of principle. Because you don't like assumptions?

The way you've ignored and distorted my arguments is frustrating on its own, but this goes beyond. You are refusing to accept even the most straightforward of assumptions about D&D because assumptions are bad, despite the fact that A. assumptions are required for basic logic to function and B. you, too are making ass

GURPS in particular, while exceedingly good for knowing the exact modifier for shooting an opponent while the two of you are riding on opposite moving vehicles with a 30 mph relative velocity, 100 meters apart, with a 20 mph headwind, at dusk, leaves many of the non-physical skills, and the resolution thereof, up to the GM.

Which is especially true of social skills, which is true in almost every TRPG I've played. (I've read a few with more focus on social situations—and hence, unsurprisingly, more precise social interaction mechanics—but I haven't had the opportunity to play any of them.)

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm accusing WotC of marketing.

Their proficiency in that skill has recently been brought into question, and even a lawsuit (from Weiss and Hickman vis a vis the head fake / course change on 'let's do some new Dragonlance novels' but that's a separate topic)

[MaxWilson]

That said, it is still the same exception-based and new-subsystem-as-needed base engine that AD&D ran on. Apparently Lorraine W. wanted backwards compatibility over other concerns, which I think that it was a bit of a wasted opportunity. I think 2e would have been a great time to try some of the basic design conceits we got with 3e, including things like a generalized resolution mechanic or the like. 2e does, however, wear its role as a 'make this what you want it to be' aesthetic on its sleeve, complete with large sections under optional banners and the like. That I really appreciate.

I for one am very grateful than 2nd edition eschews any attempts at a universal resolution mechanic, and maintains backwards compatibility with 1E.

If 2nd edition has been aiming at universal resolution mechanics, we probably would never have gotten wild magic: randomly determining effective spell level per casting, with certain values triggering a roll for additional effects--that square peg never would have fit into whatever round hole a universal resolution mechanic would have pre-defined. The freedom to come up with systems that actually behave as required, instead of systems that fit into the round hole, is one of the best things about 2nd edition.

And getting to still play classic AD&D 1E adventures is also great IMO.

[noob]

I'm baffled by this argument. Not by the general thrust—I'm very familiar with that—but the details.

For instance: Your general argument is that I'm just arguing that D&D should match my preferences rather than someone else's, but the change would sacrifice what that someone likes about D&D, so it would just be a zero sum change. Alright, that's internally-consistent...but it clashes with the claim that my change would be a downgrade. If the way the game works isn't just a matter of preference and some rules are better or worse than each other, you'd need to actually argue why resource management gameplay is better. Which you don't.

What makes it worse is the political analogy, which is both stupid (while staying within forum rules, not all possible political systems actually exist and most people can't just casually emigrate to another country) and clashes with the argument about the game because the two are vastly different in scope. I'm not sure if it would be worse to treat gaming with the level of importance associated with politics, or to treat politics with the level of frivolity associated with gaming.

It does costs more resources to redesign the system in a different way relatively to rehashing the same concepts over and over.
I did not say it was bad thing to do that just that it is a bad idea for the company which is a different thing.
From the very start I say over and over that it is a suboptimal move for wotc and you misinterpreted my arguments somehow thinking I meant "it is a bad thing as a whole"

Please read the discussion from the start to see I was talking about the fact it was a poor idea for wotc and not giving a judgement of value to the decision.

Even if making dnd be a resourceless system did make most of the player be happier it would be a bad idea to do the swap for wotc since the objective of a company is getting money so if they lose some players, make some players happier and get some new players and that it did not increase sales and got a lot of flack from it(minor but humans can be sensible to it or else they might not have backtracked after 4e) then they lost out due to the cost of making a system that is fundamentally different from what they were used to do.

For convincing someone who is looking out for their own interest to do a change you have to prove them they would gain more than the cost because of the risk aversion of people.

Also you did bring the political allegories and I was just using them afterwards by social mimicking and due to answering your posts.

And I insist: I never ever said it would be a downgrade to dnd (as far as I am concerned it is an upgrade because it makes the game much more simple to play: the heuristic of picking the best short term options suddenly works way better)
Just that wotc is unlikely to do that because it is not a good commercial idea from the pov of a company that just did revert a bunch of changes to their system structure because had a lot of negative feedback when they did change the structure of their system as much fundamentally as what you suggested.

You misinterpreting my goal (proving that wotc does not have an interest in doing this change) while I repeat the goal in each and every post makes this discussion much more complicated.

As far as I know since you still did not read my goal I should from now on only repeat my goal until you understand what my goal was then afterwards we would be finally able to do a rational discussion where you have all the elements needed to understand: if you do not know my goal (proving that wotc does not have an interest in doing this change) then you can not understand the arguments.

[Willie the Duck]

In 2E: Have the Non Weapon Proficiency? Yes: Roll under ability score - # as written. If succeed do thing. No: You can't do it. Every DM I played with. For class ability just do it.
In GURPS: Thing needed to be done. Roll less than or equal your skill. If succeed it's done. Every DM I played with.
In Rolemaster: Want to do something. Roll percentile. DM consults chart and gives results. Every DM I played with.
In Ars Magica: Want to do something. Roll 1d10 and add appropriate character sheet number to get a target number. Roll a 0 it's a botch. Every DM I played with. It's been a while. I remember how you increase your skills but don't remember if there are target number tables or it's DM fiat. If it's DM fiat c'est la vie. I know there are target numbers for spells.
For Fantasy Warhammer it is more a blur now. I remember the character sheet. I didn't really enjoy the game that much, so I'll drop this.
In 3E/Pathfinder: Feat allows This. Class ability does that. DC tables give examples of what you can do, and you can Take 10/20. Every DM I played with.
In 5E: Want to do a skill? DC is whatever the DM feels like. Want to use a class ability or feat? How it works depends on how DM interprets the rules.

Not much to say to this. I spelled out significant and specific cases where those games have areas where how things work depend in how the DM interpret the rules (or whether a given rule or system is even in effect). The very fact that each of your DMs used non-weapon proficiencies in 2E indicates a specific interpretation (well, clearly defined choice in this case). I can't tell you what your personal experience with each game was, obviously. Likewise, if those places where these games leave things open for DM/GM interpretation don't bother you, while the similar places in 5e do bother you, I also won't dismiss those. I think this is a case of YMMV. No one is required to like one thing or the other, and the key is to find a group with preferences that match your own.

Which is especially true of social skills, which is true in almost every TRPG I've played. (I've read a few with more focus on social situations—and hence, unsurprisingly, more precise social interaction mechanics—but I haven't had the opportunity to play any of them.)

It is certainly the most obvious. I do believe they produced a specific guidebook in 4e to expand the social rules. A friend of mine with a rather glaring axe to grind re: GURPS picked it up (to see if it would be helpful for designing a social system for a homebrew we were designing together) and was unimpressed, but that doesn't tell me much.

I for one am very grateful than 2nd edition eschews any attempts at a universal resolution mechanic, and maintains backwards compatibility with 1E.

If 2nd edition has been aiming at universal resolution mechanics, we probably would never have gotten wild magic: randomly determining effective spell level per casting, with certain values triggering a roll for additional effects--that square peg never would have fit into whatever round hole a universal resolution mechanic would have pre-defined. The freedom to come up with systems that actually behave as required, instead of systems that fit into the round hole, is one of the best things about 2nd edition.

And getting to still play classic AD&D 1E adventures is also great IMO.

Heh. Thanks for reminding me that 2e isn't just historically important because everyone didn't have 2-3 copies of the 1e core on their bookshelf (and 5 copies of UA for some reason)*. I would have loved Wild Magic and some of the other innovations of 2e to have come out for 1e, and then 2e could have been an experimental in-between that might have improved the eventual 3e. Yes, I suppose if 2e was your personal preferred TSR-era system, then it certainly wasn't a wasted opportunity. I just meant that, if they had started experimenting with some of those mechanics in '89, then the version they put out in 2000 would have hopefully had some kinks worked out.
*My actual D&D trajectory was: 1) BX/BECMI/occasional 1E hybrid, 2) 1E, 3) 2E through halfway through the 'complete' series, then back to BECMI (plus lots of other systems) for most of the 90s. So yeah for me 2E was a footnote, but I can understand why it wouldn't be for others.