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

[Umbran]

there are mechanics that are objectively bad. Choices that add complexity or confusion without adding fun are a good place to start.

Dude, I gotta call abuse of the term "objective" on you.

"Fun" is subjective, right? So the statement "add complexity without adding fun" must be subjective.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, I can get behind most of that.

But, as far as 1e initiative rules go, I'm going to stand by that one. Any mechanic that needs a 20 page ADDICT document to explain is BAD mechanic. If you cannot explain the initiative rules for your game in under a paragraph, that's a bad mechanic.

Personally, i am not going to defend it either, but my point is there are reasons people might prefer it to the d20 initiative system, and I would be more inclined to write it off as an unpopular mechanic, not one that is objectively bad (particularly if a designer has clear reasons for going back to it).

Can't speak for 1e but 2e standard initiative is summed up in one paragraph with a follow up explanation paragraph and then a small section on modifiers. Because 2e has lots of optional rules, there are 2-3 pages of optional rules along with a paragraph explaining how to handle multiple attacks in the system.

Even if it is involved though,that doesn't automatically mean bad. If you like rules light systems, yes a paragraph to sum up a rule isprobably good (and this is my own preference). But as I have learned with my own games,there are lots and lots of gamers out there who want more detailed systems. So my mechanics (which can usually each be summed up in a paragraph) are not complex or long enough to suit their tastes. It doesn't make sense for me to write all these folks as gamers who simpy like bad mechanics.

We have more than enough game design experience floating around to know that some ideas work better than others. Not that the ideas that don't work as well are necessarily bad. Just not as good. Trying to balance mechanical elements with campaign specific material generally doesn't work as well as balancing mechanical elements with other mechanical elements.

I am not convince this is true. It depends on your goals and your audience. What works well for a 4e audience, probably wont work for a 3e audience. I agree with you if you want to make a game that does x and you offer upnmechanics that achieve y, then by your own measure it is bad design (still you are going to find players who like that mechanic).

So, if we're going to try to balance elements, using campaign specific material in a broad based game like D&D is probably not going to work very well. Thus, one mechanic is reasonably better than another.

If one mechanic is better suited to a broader number of applications than another mechanic; of if a mechanic is more flexible than another mechanic, then that mechanic is objectively better designed. It's more robust.

If I follow you, this again would come down to your audience. Do D&D gamers prefer unified and streamlined mechanics that can handle a broad range of situations or do they prefer multiple interlocking subsystems specifically designed to handle different situations (or do they just want a bunch of mechanics that all kind of feel different). I am inclined to agree that most D&D gamers are probably on board for what you are advocating, but that could change over time and there are still people out there that want something different.

We can also judge mechanics based on elegance as well. Does it do what it's supposed to do in a number of steps that doesn't grind the game to a halt? Can we achieve the same or at least similar results with a faster mechanic?

Yes we can (and this is one of my metrics) but we should also appreciate that some folks don't want elegance. Especially when you take elegance into minimalist design you will get wildly varying opinions.

Weigh the pros and cons of mechanics as objectively as possible. "Because I like it" is never a good enough reason for any mechanic for use on any other table than mine.

I both agree and disagree. Designers should be aware of their design style and what their games are doing. But ultimately I do think the best games evade any kind of design philosophy altogether and are about the designer making a game he wants to play (i.e. Because I like it). With luck what he likes resonates with others (but usually not). One thing I learned long ago is if you can't make a game you truly like to play yourself, then don't bother because you wont be able to summon the passion forplaytesting and line development. .

 

[Bedrockgames]

Dude, I gotta call abuse of the term "objective" on you.

"Fun" is subjective, right? So the statement "add complexity without adding fun" must be subjective.

Yeah I agree. For some people the complexity is the fun. There are games out there that I can't play because they are so complex. But my comfort zone for where complexity becomes unfun is not universal.

 

[Piratecat]

Dude, I gotta call abuse of the term "objective" on you.

"Fun" is subjective, right? So the statement "add complexity without adding fun" must be subjective.

Actually, I think it's more valid to call abuse of the unqualified term "fun." I'm not trying to quibble about individual word usage, but I did leave that vague.

There is some game design that just is not as good as it could or should be -- and by this, I probably mean "it does not well serve the purpose for which it is intended, or it slows down the game excessively, or it prompts repeated arguments and confusion due to the way it is designed or presented." 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."

In 1e AD&D, how many times did you use the grappling, pummeling and overbearing tables? Go play out a 1e bar fight using these tables and no weapons, then do the same in any version of D&D from 3e on*. Which do you think ran more smoothly, which was easiest to learn, and which do you think was a better emulation of a bar fight?

Or 1e psionics. 1e psionic combat between two psionic characters took place at one attack per segment, not per round, so 10x faster than normal combat. That meant that every other player sat there and waited, and waited, while the DM and the one psionic player scanned through charts for 10 subjective rounds. That was probably fun for the player of the psionic PC, but I can't objectively call that good design.

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? 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. In 1e AD&D, the point of initiative is to see who goes first in combat. It's not a mini-game, it's not a fun bonus challenge, it's a tool -- and thus, if it isn't clearly and unambiguously accomplishing its job it's not a well designed subsystem.

EDIT: one last note. When I say "reasonable people," I think it's good to look at the intended target audience. I'm not going to decide that a super-complex Avalon Hill board game is poorly designed if I'm comparing it to Hungry Hungry Hippos. I can make determinations of what mechanics work best for speed of play, clarity/intuitiveness of rules understanding, and for accomplishing the game's actual goals, if I compare two similar war games.

* except for 3e grappling. We played 3e from 1999 to 2011, and it was still a pain in the ass to remember. But I digress.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just to comment again on the 2e initiative system. When I ran it last year i did notice two advantages to using the d10, lower roll is better appraoch. First it is a little easier to keep track of rolls mostly within a range of 1-10 (modifiers could push this higher or lower) than 1-20 (again modifiers could push this higher or lower) as a gm. The other advantage is because it is the lower roll that wins, you count initiative up, which is a touch more intuitive and also a bit easier for the gm. Probably not enough to sell it for most d20 players, but I think that is what they had in mind when they designed the rule.

 

[Imaro]

Did you read my whole post? Because i never said it wasn't different (in fact i stated i couldn't run ravenloft the same in 3e as 2e. I just felt 3e was closer to 2e than 4e was to 3e. I don't dispute most of your list either.

Edit: just to add to this, i do believe 2e and 3e are strikingly different games (and you list off some of the major reasons). When I say I couldn't utnmy finger on the reasonmy ravenloft 3e and 2e were so different, i meant i couldn't isolate the one thing all these differences seemed to share (for example because 3e was not realistic enough too realistic, complicated or not complicated enought, etc). Superficially, there was a lot in common between the editions. And the broad elements remain largely the same. The spells maybe different but they are all mostly there, the spell system is largley the same (which some key differences though once you get past the broad strokes), classes are all familiar, as are the races, etc. But yes some signiificsnt differences that make for very different play (the way skills and NwP work are very different, particularly because thief abilities are tied to the class in 2e and not the nwp/skill system).

I think this post might give some insight on why some/many people "feel" 4e is so different, from past editions, including 3e... It's the broad strokes that don't match up (as opposed to the details, which you have to look mighty closely at to notice).

Just as a simple example... 4e is the only edition where Paladins aren't confined to LG. Now as far as actual rules changes go... it's not a big change... However, whether you were for or against Paladins being cast as LG, in a broad sense that's a pretty big change to the previous editions versions of that class.

Another example is 4e's lack of base creatures for many/most of the monsters. 3e allowed you to modify these creatures but you still had a base goblin, orc, bugbear, etc. 4e is the first edition where there is no such thing as a base goblin or base kobold. Again this creates a very different "feel" to the game compared to previous editions.

Some other things in 4e I think give it a different feel in play are... self healing with healing surges, No reason to carry more than one type of weapon, using any attribute for an attack, (until a revision) magic missile not auto-hitting...and so on.

I've come around to liking 4e more, just not for my D&D fix... IMO, 4e has alot of these changes that, while not big rules changes, make it "feel" more different from the previous editions, regardless of the actual number of rules changes it has in a comparison of 4e vs. 3e and 3e vs. 2e. All IMO, of course.

 

[Piratecat]

Just to comment again on the 2e initiative system. When I ran it last year i did notice two advantages to using the d10, lower roll is better appraoch. First it is a little easier to keep track of rolls mostly within a range of 1-10 (modifiers could push this higher or lower) than 1-20 (again modifiers could push this higher or lower) as a gm. The other advantage is because it is the lower roll that wins, you count initiative up, which is a touch more intuitive and also a bit easier for the gm. Probably not enough to sell it for most d20 players, but I think that is what they had in mind when they designed the rule.

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.

 

[Dimitrios]

I think this post might give some insight on why some/many people "feel" 4e is so different, from past editions, including 3e... It's the broad strokes that don't match up (as opposed to the details, which you have to look mighty closely at to notice).

Just as a simple example... 4e is the only edition where Paladins aren't confined to LG. Now as far as actual rules changes go... it's not a big change... However, whether you were for or against Paladins being cast as LG, in a broad sense that's a pretty big change to the previous editions versions of that class.

Another example is 4e's lack of base creatures for many/most of the monsters. 3e allowed you to modify these creatures but you still had a base goblin, orc, bugbear, etc. 4e is the first edition where there is no such thing as a base goblin or base kobold. Again this creates a very different "feel" to the game compared to previous editions.

Some other things in 4e I think give it a different feel in play are... self healing with healing surges, No reason to carry more than one type of weapon, using any attribute for an attack, (until a revision) magic missile not auto-hitting...and so on.

I've come around to liking 4e more, just not for my D&D fix... IMO, 4e has alot of these changes that, while not big rules changes, make it "feel" more different from the previous editions, regardless of the actual number of rules changes it has in a comparison of 4e vs. 3e and 3e vs. 2e. All IMO, of course.

I agree with this. 3e is very different from 1&2e, but that's not immediately apparent. You have to play for a while in order for the differences to become clear (when they did become clear I switched to Castles & Crusades and have stuck with it ever since).

In 4e the differences club you over the head. In terms of presentation, it seems like the designers made a deliberate choice to say as loudly as possible : "This is not your father's D&D!".

Some people appreciated that, many didn't.

 

[Siberys]

With the 2e ==> 3e / 3e ==> 4e argument, it seems to me that people are comparing apples and oranges;

On the 2e ==> 3e side, the argument is "It feels more alike", whereas the 3e ==> 4e side is saying "The rules are more alike". Completely separate arguments. Personally, I disagree with the 2e ==> 3e premise, but that is clearly subjective, so... eh? I have an easier time evoking the feel I want in 4e than I ever had in 3e, but what does that prove?

I /really/ think it would be hard to argue that 3e is more /mechanically/ similar to 2e than 4e, though, FWIW. The main difference for most character-important values is how you get to a particular number on a character sheet, or whether it's a passive value (10+modifier vs. roll) or an active value (roll+modifier vs. difficulty). :/

 

[pemerton]

As much as I liked to agree with you, and your points are all valid, somehow when I began playing 3.0 I didn´t feel a great difference. It was quite a bit later, in higher levels that you noticed a big change... the similarities were glaring, the differences rather subtle.

That sounds plausible. I agree the similarities are glaring.

And with 4e, the changes were more apparent, and the similarities more subtle.

One of the many things I like about 4e is that when I read the rules I get a sense of how the game will play, and then - lo and behold - when I play the game that is how it plays.

The mechanics, at least for me, are transparent in that sense. They don't conceal the play experience they are meant to deliver.

I don't think this is true of all editions of D&D. For example, Moldvay Basic gives Hercules as an example of a figther, and Merlin as an example of a magic-user - but there is no way that playing Basic, or even (in my view) B/X, is going to give you a Hercules-esque or Merlin-esque experience.