-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D (2024) In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books
- Thread starter Parmandur
- Start date
While it's true that new and different does not in itself mean something is better, I think you are crediting the process with an efficiency it simply did not have. There may have been all sorts of reasons for a change, but they were not explained, and as a result many variables were not controlled for. As a result, we simply do not know if they made things better or not. The surveys reflected a gut-reaction from the fanbase, and there are many ways that (lack of) framing shaped the fanbase response.
There also was a lack of clarity concerning what the meaning of a negative vote was: people would vote negatively if they didn't like this specific version but they did like the idea, if they didn't like the idea generally. And that understanding changed the way ideas were received over time.
This may have been a good idea (or not), but it was not fully implemented, and it was easy to see initial holes:
- eroding wizards having more/better spells than all other classes
- specialist class spells for partial subclasses came online earlier for full spellcasters, eroding their identity
All of that is easily solved, but we didn't see it solved clear enough at the time, and we weren't told the reasons it was suggested:
- did it make it easier for new players? Probably, but they were less likely to respond.
- did it make ancillary tools such as spell cards more viable?
- did it somehow save pages in the PHB, which could have allowed them to add Artificer into the PHB?
For me, the idea was rich, because it effectively tripled the number of available Bard builds (and that could have been extended to Sorcerer trivially, tripling them). And that made it (for me) a brilliant idea, as long as they would iterate improvements on the implementation issues mentioned above.
But no context was given, and as a result it was thumbed-down. it
The process did not allow for this sort of nuanced interpretation.
Backwards compatibility was a sacred cow, but cries for its importance, at least on these boards, have diminished significantly over the past 18 months. But yes, this was another icon that was held up with no clear shared understanding of what it impled.
Each of these (and other things too) worked as described above: without context, and without a clear sense of how a negative vote would be interpreted, I just don't think we have the data to support these inferences, and (significantly) the designers didn't have the granularity of response needed to discriminate either.
There were other factors, too: serial corporate shenanigans and missteps coloured the whole process, and part of the process was designed to create conversations and engage the fanbase: even if nothing was changed in the rules, that angle succeeded. In terms of promotion, the playtest was successful. I just don't think we can conclude that these were changes for change's sake, rightly shot down. We just don't have the dat that support that conclusion.
gorice
Hero
Can you expand on what you find objectionable about this? Because it's one of the few thinks Perkins has ever said that I agree with!
Many of the current classes make no sense, constantly step on each others' toes, and are kept around (IMO) solely because removing or reorganising them would upset people. Barbarian and paladin are fighter subclasses, they just get their own class for purely contingent reasons. Likewise the monk, but with extra orientalism. A druid is just a nature cleric with a cargo cult built around its historical baggage. Sorcerers are wizards without hats; warlocks are wizards in corpsepaint.
In my experience, new players constantly stumble on the wizard/sorcerer distinction in particular -- it's the kind of thing a competent designer would have fixed in an early draft.
Oofta
Legend
I just disagree. Market research and surveys will always be flawed and can always be improved. But heaven forbid anyone show any kind of humility and openly admit they could improve! Obviously that have no concept of greatness!
The goal of the game is to sell to the most people it can. It's not to design the "perfect" game. It's not even about designing a "better" game because based on previous discussions I can pretty much guarantee your "better" game would likely be a game I wouldn't want to play. D&D is not a boutique game, it's goal is to appeal to the broadest audience possible. I'm perfectly okay with that because I happen to like the game. For me, it's the best version of D&D ever published even if there are things I dislike. As a developer I've always had the motto of don't let perfection get in the way of good enough. For millions of people good enough works.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Chris Perkins didn't use the word tank, that's what the journalist uses in their own words. A games journalist at that, so yes, I feel pretty comfortable in saying people use the term pretty loosely for "tough frontline type".
Parmandur
Book-Friend
I mean, the initial D&D Next design was 4 base Classes, with larger Subclasses. The player surveys shot that down. Perkins is just revealing that he was part of Team Class Minimalism when asked why they didn't add more newbase Classes this go around: because if he was in charge and not beholden to fan surveys, he would reduce the Core Classes to 4. Which is viable.
mellored
Legend
He is talking about game design and reducing a large number of choices down to a series of small choices. This reduces the amount of information players need to start playing.
I.e.
Instead of having to read and choose between 12 options, reading 12 pages..
You instead choose between 4, and next level you read and choose between 3.
So now a player only needs to read 4+3 =7 pages.
But the game still has 4*3 = 12 options.
The same reason why computers are divided up into folders. Or why you have a closet for towels and a closet for clothes.
Now there is certainly lots of room for debate over how to organize all that. But there is good reason to do so.
I.e.
Fighter 1: choose between knight, brute, or archery.
The level 2, Knight divided to Paladin, Armoror, and Shield Master
Had it's benefits.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
I think the 12 options (13 at this point, eventually maybe as much as 14 or 15!) of 5E, plus Subclasses, has been a. Good balance overall...but it is notable that so many new and fresh games tend towards the minimalism that Perkins describes.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
That's not what it looks like he's saying. You seem to be reading a lot into that. He looks like he's just saying "average forum poster" stuff where he's just come up with the "genius" idea that that Fighters and Barbarians cover some of the same ground. He doesn't even mention the approach you're discussing.
He's not engaging in humility, quite the contrary, he's engaging in hubris. He's not a game designer. He's an editor and adventure writer. So... unless we're talking about different things...But heaven forbid anyone show any kind of humility and openly admit they could improve! Obviously that have no concept of greatness!
And even on that basis, which is a fine basis, I don't think they've remotely done everything they could.
Here's how I see it - 5E had two main people behind it - Mearls and Crawford. Mearls is gone, and has been for most of 5E's history because of, well, his own hubris and thoughtless sexism. The other two most important initial 5E designers, Rodney Thompson and Peter Lee have also both left. Thompson got taken by Bungie and probably makes 2x what he did at WotC. Peter Lee got let go at some point and is now an indie designer.
So Crawford has basically the other 3 band members, but wants to keep the band going - so all he can think of to do is keep going exactly as they were, even though, were the rest of them still around, they might have done something to actually improve the situation, rather than merely maintain it.
It's not an invalid choice to do basically nothing, but it's a choice and it should be seen and owned as an active choice, rather than the only possibility.
They did fix it in an early draft, that's the funny thing.
Do you remember? They were very distinct classes in the 5E playtest. Then after the last playtest, they inexplicably reverted to the 3E Sorcerer.
My point though is his very shallow thinking - he clearly hasn't considered it as much as you have, for example.
Which ones? Because I've seen games attempt to minimalize classes for decades - since the 1990s - and it rarely proves popular or successful. In fact it seems to be a pretty great way to ensure your game never becomes terribly popular. Even classless games tend to do a lot better than games which have 3-4 broad classes. Don't get me started on the Cypher system lol.
