D&D 5E 5e's big problem - Balancing "Being D&D" versus "Being Not D&D"

[Umbran]

If you're actually looking at "fun," I think it's fair to use a shorthand metric of "what a preponderance of reasonable people would think after comparing the two."

And I think that's an entirely reasonable target for a designer.

But it still ain't "objective". That word has a whole lot of power and meaning. The idea behind that word does help drive edition wars, so I'm gonna yelp when someone lays claim to it inaccurately. Common wisdom and broad agreement are good things, and by all means we should use them, but let us not confuse them with objective truth, is all I'm sayin'.

If the purpose of a game is complexity, if that's the actual goal, then a complex system that meets the goals is probably objectively good and leads to more fun than a simple system. I have trouble of thinking of many games where that applies, though.

Advanced Squad Leader. But you hit on that later.

Playing that game is intended to be a mental exercise. And, just like physical exercise put into game form (like, say, basketball), some folks find it fun. I did, back in the day, even. Not so much today, but I recall the enjoyment regardless. I know players who approach RPGs similarly - they are looking for the tactical combat game as the main source of their enjoyment. All you have to do is decide how much you want to design for those players.

I'd argue that most games should be only as complex as they need to be to in order to reach whatever that goal is.

And I'd agree. But then we are admitting the goal needs to be stated, and we can determine who will find that goal a worthy one. Moreover, we can then see the nested goals inherent in the design, and determine if maybe some of them are in conflict with each other, or with the expected goals of the players.

 

[seregil]

I think I was one of the few players who loved 2e initiative. Roll the die, add your weapon speed or spellcasting time, and you know when you went. You also knew when your spell might be interrupted. It was more simulationist than I like nowadays, but I thought it was one of the few really noticeable improvements from 1e.

You're not alone. I liked this system. It added some flavour and it added an extra variable when choosing weapons. Sure, your 2-handed axe really can do damage, but the speed factor is such, you will go last every time.

Managing the variable order was a pain though.

 

[Ranes]

I think I was one of the few players who loved 2e initiative. Roll the die, add your weapon speed or spellcasting time, and you know when you went. You also knew when your spell might be interrupted. It was more simulationist than I like nowadays, but I thought it was one of the few really noticeable improvements from 1e.

The system says I've got to spread XP around but I wanted to throw a point in your direction, because one of my favourite 2e things was the initiative system (even acknowledging Seregil's observation). It is a derivative of this that I most often entertain the idea of when it comes to modifying my 3.x rule set.

Aside: to your earlier a point about one of the first things you learned as a game designer. One of the first things I learned - and that I'm being reminded of again this week - is this:

Designers don't finish games. They have their games taken off them.

 

[Piratecat]

But it still ain't "objective". That word has a whole lot of power and meaning. The idea behind that word does help drive edition wars, so I'm gonna yelp when someone lays claim to it inaccurately. Common wisdom and broad agreement are good things, and by all means we should use them, but let us not confuse them with objective truth, is all I'm sayin'.

No, I'm still not quite with you on this.

To wit:

It is a truth that for most players, adding numbers is faster and more intuitive than subtracting numbers.

If your game goal is to teach people subtraction and math skills, a system that uses subtraction is objectively better.

If your goal is to get the math the hell out of the way so that you can resolve combat as quickly as possible, a system that uses addition is objectively better.

Most aspects of game design, particularly in the details, have no objective best case. I understand the power of this word, and I understand how often it leads to edition wars. You have to state or know your goal before it's even meaningful, and even then some people will disagree. That's okay, but (and this is the important part) the fact that someone prefers subtraction for combat rolls does not change the fact that teaching subtraction is not the design goal for D&D's combat system. Subtraction is not objectively better for fast D&D combat.

The trick, of course, is agreeing on the goal. Many folks who love 4e will probably argue that tactical richness and degree of player options/choice far outweigh the benefit of combat speed. People who prefer OD&D probably disagree. Neither of those is a platonic, objective "best" D&D unless we can specify which our goal is, and even then you have to look at other options as well.

 

[ExploderWizard]

They can make whatever game they want. If they want to call it D&D then it had better be recognizable as such.

Wanna innovate and do totally new things? Go right ahead just don't try and slap a D&D label on it.

D&D is simple and abstract. There are a whole slew of games that give different play experiences than D&D does.

 

[howandwhy99]

If the purpose of a game is complexity, if that's the actual goal, then a complex system that meets the goals is probably objectively good and leads to more fun than a simple system. I have trouble of thinking of many games where that applies, though. How many games have "confuse and frustrate the players with poorly organized minutiae" as their goal?

Most game designers I know differentiate between complexity & complication. Chess is more complicated than Go, but Go is more complex than Chess. Chess has more rules, more types of pieces, more special cases, and is simply more difficult to learn than Go, which is pretty damn elegant. In its defense though, Chess is also a pretty damn elegant game. It has its peculiar idiosyncrasies that make it definitively chess and not any other game, but it still is very well designed for any designer whose aim is a lot of complexity with relatively low complication.

 

[Ranes]

Most game designers I know differentiate between complexity & complication. Chess is more complicated than Go, but Go is more complex than Chess. Chess has more rules, more types of pieces, more special cases, and is simply more difficult to learn than Go, which is pretty damn elegant. In its defense though, Chess is also a pretty damn elegant game. It has its peculiar idiosyncrasies that make it definitively chess and not any other game, but it still is very well designed for any designer whose aim is a lot of complexity with relatively low complication.

Absolutely.

Strangely, while I prefer Go to Chess, I prefer my D&D to be more akin to Chess than to Go.

 

[Libramarian]

Ballocks. This is just wrong.

I can objectively look at Spawn of Fashan and say, "Yup, that's a bad game". I can objectively look at the 1e initiative rules and say, "Yup, that's poor game design". I can objectively look at lots and lots of things and say, "yup, that's not as good as it could be, and here's how."

The idea that a good RPG is subjective, so we shouldn't bother trying to change anything, is how we get piss poor rules sets.

I like the 1e initiative rules.

They are extremely poorly explained, mind. But if you tease them out and re-organize them, they're a great example of a rules system with modular pieces that only kick in when they're necessary.

e.g. 1e initiative doesn't care when a fighter attacks during the round UNLESS there's a question of whether they attack before something else happens.

2e initiative has you add your weapon speed to your initiative roll to find the segment in which you attack every time. 1e only has you determine that when it's relevant. It's more conceptually complex and harder to learn, but more efficient. That's the general theme of modular vs. unified systems I think.

 

[Umbran]

No, I'm still not quite with you on this.

No, we are together, I think.

To wit:

It is a truth that for most players, adding numbers is faster and more intuitive than subtracting numbers.

If your game goal is to teach people subtraction and math skills, a system that uses subtraction is objectively better.

If your goal is to get the math the hell out of the way so that you can resolve combat as quickly as possible, a system that uses addition is objectively better.

Yep. No argument. But as you said, you had to state the goal before you could make the statement. That's the crux of the matter I'm trying to point out.

You are limiting yourself not to making the objectively best mechanic, or best game, but the best that fits a particular set of goals. And the value of those goals is not objective.

There's the difference. If you leave out the goal, the statement is implicitly general. If you put in the goal, the statement is explicitly limited and qualified. In terms of discussion here, in plain text, between people who don't agree on what the goals are, that's a massive difference.

 

[Ranes]

Please forgive me if I've forgotten this point being made upthread, but it seems to me that it's the idea that a D&D rule expresses or tries to encapsulate, rather than the rule itself, that many people here - push comes to shove - would say helps them define what they mean when they talk about a version 'feeling' like D&D to them.

If that is the case, and you frame Innerdude's initial premise within those bounds, it suddenly seems much more inclusive, to me. I'm probably stating the obvious.

I differentiate between the idea that I am playing the best of all possible rules systems and the idea that I'm playing a game I've come to love that's called D&D. Complicating this definitively personal distinction is the fact that, whatever my D&D starting point, part of its inherent appeal is that it accommodates addition to and modification of its rules.