D&D (2024) In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books


log in or register to remove this ad

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
I'm of the opinion that a lot of the changes WotC put forth in the original playtest packets for One D&D weren't actually all that much better than the stuff we already had, but some folks really latched onto them because they were new and different ideas. And for some players, anything new would be a welcomed sight. But just because something is new doesn't mean it's actually more worthwhile to have in the game, and it seems apparently that a lot of the playerbase felt that way.

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.

The spell source groupings are just one example: is assigning spells to groups of classes actually appreciably "better" that assigning spells to individual classes? Doesn't seem that way based on opinions and poll results. That change looks like it did not set off any "Eureka!" moment that exploded the game open and made everyone go "Why didn't we think of this before!?! We need this!" Which is not surprising... most ideas in all ways of life end up being met with just shrugs from a lot of people and very few ever are worth a 'Eureka!' reaction.
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

Now, was the change interesting? I'm sure to a lot of players it was, oftentimes just as a curiosity factor for delving into something new and seeing how things could be... but I suspect (based on the poll results) that not a lot of people thought it was a changed that HAD to be made to the game to make it appreciably better.
The process did not allow for this sort of nuanced interpretation.

It'd make spellcasting in 5E24 slightly different, sure, but different for difference sake does not make it worth doing per se. And if compatibility and accessibility were important for this new game update,
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.

it looks like WotC felt there was no reason to swap out things that worked fine for most people and wouldn't be markedly improved by the new idea. Which is also not surprising-- if most players actually like most of the 5E14 D&D game... there's no reason to change things for the sake of changing them-- spell groupings, the Warlock chassis, wildshape templates etc.

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.

And while some people might have thought any of those ideas were the greatest ideas... if not enough people agreed then there was no reason for a switch to be made.
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
I felt like it might be a bit mean but then I read the article properly, and it's obvious Chris Perkins is operating on "average forum poster" levels of game design ideas, not like "game designer" levels of game design, like for example, Chris Perkins says:



Welcome to ill-considered ideas island - it's got a vast population of total randos talking about stuff they don't understand! I'm often one of them too! Also good thing that's a personal opinion buddy because I'm very sure Mearls didn't share it and pretty sure Crawford doesn't.

I'm not sure why they're even talking to Perkins, honestly, about this. It's rather odd.
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
Supporter
Is that you, Bakunin?

This is easily the most extreme nihilist take I've ever read re: selling a game!

They can absolutely do more than "hope they don't upset the apple cart" or "poke around a bit"! They could do significantly more in-depth research, they could gather different kinds of data from what they do, they could have considered bigger or even small changes than they actually presented, and they could very certainly take a better approach than "0.01% of audience has a 70% approval with zero nuance of this thing" (it wasn't 0.01% but it's down there). They don't want to because they're risk-averse and also don't seem to have a high opinion of their own talent. That's not necessarily a totally bad thing, but it is a specific thing, and it's not the only way it could be.

I say "they" but I'm not convinced Perkins or Crawford actually could. I mean, god love 'em, but I think they're pretty much the definition of "milquetoast" when it comes to game design. It's like, they're the Coldplay of game designers. Coldplay sold a lot of records! They're boring, safe, unimaginative, and their biggest hits aren't really that great. But they fill stadiums and they sell records, what more do you want, you unreasonable Ruin Explorer?

You see that here even - Perkins says not "trying to prove himself as a game designer", and it's like, well good thing because you're basically just coasting on the design Mearls, Crawford, Thompson and Lee did back in 2014! Why would we think you, a man who is primarily an editor, is trying to prove themselves as a game designer?

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! :rolleyes:

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, he/him
This is flatly untrue.

Most people discussing D&D and other games use "tank" far more precisely now than they did say, 10 or 15 years ago.

This is Chris Perkins using it imprecisely and inaccurately, not "people". Whilst a Monk can be played as a tank, it's unconventional, and unless the changes in 2024 for Monks are bigger than we thought, not something you could easily do.
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, he/him
Welcome to ill-considered ideas island - it's got a vast population of total randos talking about stuff they don't understand! I'm often one of them too! Also good thing that's a personal opinion buddy because I'm very sure Mearls didn't share it and pretty sure Crawford doesn't.
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
I felt like it might be a bit mean but then I read the article properly, and it's obvious Chris Perkins is operating on "average forum poster" levels of game design ideas, not like "game designer" levels of game design, like for example, Chris Perkins says:



Welcome to ill-considered ideas island - it's got a vast population of total randos talking about stuff they don't understand! I'm often one of them too! Also good thing that's a personal opinion buddy because I'm very sure Mearls didn't share it and pretty sure Crawford doesn't.

I'm not sure why they're even talking to Perkins, honestly, about this. It's rather odd.
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, he/him
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.
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.
 

I mean, the initial D&D Next design was 4 base Classes, with larger Subclasses. The surveys shot thst 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.
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.
But heaven forbid anyone show any kind of humility and openly admit they could improve! Obviously that have no concept of greatness! :rolleyes:
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
but it is notable that so many new and fresh games tend towards the minimalism that Perkins describes.
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.
 

Remove ads

Top