D&D 5E 5E: A chiropractic adjustment for D&D (and why I'm very hopeful)

[Raith5]

Ouch! I don't think that's true. AD&D is a well-designed game.

In 1984 I would have agreed with you! Now, since the development of more recent RPGs I dont think I would. I mean I understand that people like old RPGs and they still work for them (just like some people rock old cars etc), but I think each edition of D&D has introduced new elements that have changed what I expect of a RPG. However, I also think that while each edition has been a bit better, IMO, I do think that a more simplified version of D&D is welcome contrast to the last two editions, but again I am not sure that AD&D is the epitome of a well organised and simplified game!

 

[Raith5]

This reflects my experience of 4E, too, but I have to say, I have some sympathy with Danny's position that 4E was in some ways an amazing FRPG system that had it's wings clipped by trying to conform to D&D tropes specifically..

Which tropes are being referred to here? I mean I agree with the view prevailing in this thread that 4E had a strong (but narrow) vision/playstyle, and sure some of the races (and their prominence on the PHB!) caused ructions and certainly new 4E tropes like martial healing caused concerns, etc. But how was 4E constrained by previous tropes?

 

[Mercurius]

Let's be honest: 1E was a total mess, but it was a glorious mess! That's part of it's charm, but for me makes it more of a museum curio than a playable RPG.

To be fair, 5th will also reflect the illogic and peccadillos of its designers, whatever they may be. Gygax wasn't perfect, but neither is anyone else.

Yeah but by making everything "even steven" you're obscuring any distinctions. 1E was largely the creation of one man; of course others had input and it was "playtested" to some extent through Gary's home campaigns, but a lot of what went into the rulebooks was the ramblings of mr. Gygax, and the game has a hole really bore his signature (the Gygaxian Stench).

5E had a real design team. It isn't just Mike Mearls, perhaps not even mainly Mearls except insofar as he is the guy who held the whole thing together. But in a way 5E seems more like the outcome of a few years of research and testing by a group of peers, with resulting peer feedback, whereas 1E seems like the creation of a lone mad genius.

The other important factor is that 1E was designed with really only a few years of RPG history, while 5E has 40 years behind it. Big difference. In fact, D&D as a lineage was relatively insulated (to it's own detriment, I think) until 3E - when it caught up with the rest of the RPG world. 2E was less clunky than 1E, but by the mid-90s was still rather anachronistic - a late 80s revision of a late 70s game that was lumbering towards the new millenium like the "rough beast" of Yeats' The Second Coming.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Research did have actual rules, as I recall, as in the DM could block you, and I think it could fail, but making it discover different spells entirely would be a House Rule, and you should probably significantly reduce the cost (and possibly the time) of research if using it.

As I recall*, the actual rules were

1) wizards started off with a spell book with Read Magic, 1 offensive spell, 1 defensive spell, and one utility spell.

2) wizards automatically learned new spells each level.

3) learning a spell- IOW, adding it to your spellbook- involved choosing which ones you wanted to learn, then making some kind of roll to see if you succeeded. Dice, not DMs, decided whether you learned the spells you wanted. If you didn't, you then went through the rest of the list, making rolls until you had learned your new spells.





* I'd go check, but I'm literally in the process of a temporary move for renovation purposes, and can't get to my books

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As I recall*, the actual rules were

1) wizards started off with a spell book with Read Magic, 1 offensive spell, 1 defensive spell, and one utility spell.

2) wizards automatically learned new spells each level.

3) learning a spell- IOW, adding it to your spellbook- involved choosing which ones you wanted to learn, then making some kind of roll to see if you succeeded. Dice, not DMs, decided whether you learned the spells you wanted. If you didn't, you then went through the rest of the list, making rolls until you had learned your new spells.

* I'd go check, but I'm literally in the process of a temporary move for renovation purposes, and can't get to my books

Researching spells is an entirely separate set of rules from these (and in the DMG iirc). Hope to look them up later. Also 2 by default wasn't true except for Specialists iirc. I might not rc (think free spells was optional rule but may be confused).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Which tropes are being referred to here? I mean I agree with the view prevailing in this thread that 4E had a strong (but narrow) vision/playstyle, and sure some of the races (and their prominence on the PHB!) caused ructions and certainly new 4E tropes like martial healing caused concerns, etc. But how was 4E constrained by previous tropes?

In very short form, maybe more detail later - monster design (esp. early on but there was always a "falling between two stools" issue), non-combat class abilities (inc. skills), and rituals were big areas where 4E had problems more because it was "D&D" than anything else (imo).

 

[DDNFan]

Yeah, 4E was needed, just as 3.xE was.

AD&D never asked the question, "Why do we do this this way?" in any sort of serious manner. The Gygaxian rule was make up some stuff that seems like fun... but ignore elegance, simplicity, or even what makes (logical) sense. Riffing off the chiropractic analogy, the end result was like saying, "It's fun spending your life as a hunchback with club feet!" Anyway, as Gary's later work showed, he really wasn't a very good game designer but he did catch lightning in a bottle with D&D.

3.xE really tried to ask "Why?" and did a good job, possibly too good. And 4E was very much a chiropractic adjustment for 3.xE that addressed most of the issues for DMs and some of the issues for players.

5E is interesting as it's seemingly a chiropractic adjustment to Gygaxian AD&D - basically an attempt to get AD&D "right" - as well as a reaction to, and adjustment of, the excessed of post-Gygaxian D&D. I still think of 5E more as AD&D3E rather than D&D5E. Hmmm, maybe it's not so much a chiropractic adjustment of AD&D but a piece of major surgery....

Wait a minute, Gygax wasn't a very good game designer? People (including you and I) are still talking about, and playing HIS game fourty years later. He's had more influence on all kinds of hobbies including movies, books, TV shows, video games (hit points), RPGs than pretty much any other designer could get in his wildest dreams.

This entire hobby wouldn't exist without his singular creative genius. Show some respect. 5th Edition is largely fixing bugs introduced in the interim between 1st ed and now, it's genius is combining some modern elements and fixes with Gygax' vision. That was one of their main design goals, making a D&D that feels like the game we want, and keeping it simple and fun. Gygax didn't have simplicity as a design goal, he started from scratch. It's easier to iterate on something and come out with sequels than invent an entire creative field. I consider the competence of current game designers from the point of view of how well they can solve minutiae. I don't believe any of them are creative geniuses. Creative and talented, yes. Geniuses, no. Nobody's ever heard of Monte Cook, Mike Mearls, Fate, 13th Age, or even Pathfinder, outside people in this hobby. Not so for D&D and Gygax. His invention is such a singular work of genius that countless other creative fields have stolen liberally from it. Name one thing that people outside the hobby could say about anyone else. Probably nil, since they didn't invent something as special as D&D. Since it's a game and it had a designer, the success of the game on the world stage is due to his singular genius.

Calling him so flippantly a bad game designer, in passing, is just so absurd. Wake me up if ever anyone you consider a game design genius is ever heard of outside the narrow confines of websites such as these. Or any of their creations. That would suffice. Until then...

/thread

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wait a minute, Gygax wasn't a very good game designer? People (including you and I) are still talking about, and playing HIS game fourty years later. He's had more influence on all kinds of hobbies including movies, books, TV shows, video games (hit points), RPGs than pretty much any other designer would imagine.

This entire hobby wouldn't exist without his creative genius. Show some respect.

/thread

Er, you just took a rather large dump on Dave Arneson, so no /thread for you, son.

Further, the initial spark of inspiration is often not the same thing as the ability to truly design something well. The Wright Brothers invented the plane, but frankly, their designs after that were terrible. They also insisted the problems were pilot error, which they were not, and stuck with a design they knew was critically flawed in an attempt to win a patent case.

Let's be clear, I like Gary as a person (was lucky enough to converse with him a few times, albeit online, he was always fun and pleasant), and he started all this. Awesome. I do not, however, think he was a particularly remarkable game designer in terms of actually designing games, either mechanically, or conceptually, after his initial inspiration. You should need look no further than Mythus/Dangerous Journeys (which I own!) to see that!

TLDR: Influence != skill.

 

[DDNFan]

Er, you just took a rather large dump on Dave Arneson, so no /thread for you, son.
...
TLDR: Influence != skill.

Good point about Dave Arneson, but Gygax earned his name in the annals of history, and the only influence he acquired was as a direct result of the popularity of the game he created, which, if he wasn't a "very good game designer" would not have happened. Unless you think the art on the cover what was sold the original D&D and not the concept or the rules that supported the concept's execution in such a compelling way. Compelling enough, that people are still playing that version of D&D many years later, possibly even more than people are playing 4th edition according to rumours about dndclassics sales.

You cannot belittle the man's game design skills when without them, we wouldn't even be here, talking about this.

The main adjustment that 5th edition did was to bring the game back much closer to the original vision of the game, for which Gygax and Arneson are most definitely responsible, and therefore deserve the credit more than many other "very good game designers", whose innovations have not stood the test of time and have been largely reverted by later designers who realized that many of those "old ideas" are better. Rolling a d20 and then damage is a winning formula. Until you can find any TTRPG that doesn't use that which reaches or surpasses the popularity levels of D&D, there is no point in arguing about it. Even the star wars games are derivatives, as is Pathfinder.

So, new game designers should come up with a compelling new fundamental game or concept instead of sitting on the shoulders of giants and claiming only they can reach those heights. If anyone came up with a better RPG concept or system that people will use, and have it achieve the levels of success D&D has, then maybe we could talk about there being better game designers. Until then, we're all just playing around in his pool.

And that's only discussing combat mechanics. Just wait until you throw in all the classic monsters and spells which are also equally part of what makes the game unique. If those aren't clear signs of game design genius, that grab people and they use and reuse those monsters and concepts over and over for decades, then I don't know what to say. It's a billion dollar franchise. This thread is starting to sound like people claiming Lucas wasn't ever a great filmmaker, on a Star Wars forum. The level of absurdity of that assertion is staggering.

So Again, / thread.

 

[TwoSix]

You cannot belittle the man's game design skills when without them, we wouldn't even be here, talking about this.
So Again, / thread.

Actually, there's no particular reason, either logical or moral, not to.

Trying to decide whether a historical figure's achievements are a result of inborn genius and talent, or whether the specifics of the narrative around that figure played a greater role in the figure's achievements is a discussion that occurs all the time. Go ask on a sport forum about who the greatest quarterback of all time is, or who the greatest basketball player is, for example. Such discussions invariably boil down to weighting of individual statistics versus the narrative of the player's accrued championships, which parallels deciding if it was Gygax's innate talents that made D&D great, or whether there was a certain alchemy that was achieved between Gygax, Arneson, the other players, and the time and place of the initial D&D sessions.