Should game designers remain neutral when designing D&D?

[Umbran]

I feel agreed with and disagreed with at the same time...but it will certainly be harder to cook food you cant taste, and do it well.

Well, here's the thing - in cooking, my wife has a pretty broad palate, but in this one thing, eating it is not an option. There's tons of things she can cook that don't have strawberries. Some of those things have variants that could include strawberries.

Like strawberry shortcake. Most of the time, for ourselves, we make *blueberry* shortcake. This has led to knowing how to make the actual cake (honestly, it is more a biscuit) extremely well. Then, when we want to offer strawberry shortcake, my wife just dons some gloves (or has me do the knife work), and a separate berry mixture is made. The berry mixture is itself pretty simple, and hard to screw up.

So, not liking one very specific thing is perhaps not such a barrier as liking only one very specific thing.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Ain't no such thing as neutral

That's the real point. From cleaning their house to developing the most complex scientific theories, humans are always investing a whole life of preconceptions in everything they do. I'm sorry, but you won't get a chance to ever see Mr. Mearls take on what could be a neutral D&D design.

Cheers,

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

In game design there is always a skeleton first. You build your base mechanical system and work from there. Being easy or hard to kill is a particular playstyle and is easily taken care of with specific options.

 

[GMMichael]

I believe game designers should not create games based in their personal preference. I think the core system should be as neutral as possible with options that allow players to tailor their games to their playstyle of choice. I believe 5th edition is taking on too much of 4th editions death rarity playstyle and I would really like to see that avoided. Let each group decide what playstyle they want. What I like may not always be what a designer likes.

Get this. I completely disagree with you: game systems should dictate a range of playstyles that is acceptable, and include enough flavor to stimulate the players' imaginations. (Otherwise, they won't sell.)

Yet, the game I'm designing is a core system that attempts to remain as neutral as possible.



Here's why:
[sblock]
The game I'm designing, Modos RPG, is a core system. It's designed to be playable by itself, but that's not the point. Game groups are supposed to be able to plug in a rules module to the core system, so that Modos RPG quickly becomes whatever game the group wants it to be. So it's also supposed to be very house-rule friendly. Also, the game rules are open-source (and included in the core rulebook), so you can ideally shop around for a rules module as easily as you could download Firefox plugins or Skyrim mods.

So I'll be designing my own personal rules module based on my own tastes, but the core rules are highly neutral.[/sblock]

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Get this. I completely disagree with you: game systems should dictate a range of playstyles that is acceptable, and include enough flavor to stimulate the players' imaginations. (Otherwise, they won't sell.)

Yet, the game I'm designing is a core system that attempts to remain as neutral as possible.



Here's why:
[sblock]
The game I'm designing, Modos RPG, is a core system. It's designed to be playable by itself, but that's not the point. Game groups are supposed to be able to plug in a rules module to the core system, so that Modos RPG quickly becomes whatever game the group wants it to be. So it's also supposed to be very house-rule friendly. Also, the game rules are open-source (and included in the core rulebook), so you can ideally shop around for a rules module as easily as you could download Firefox plugins or Skyrim mods.

So I'll be designing my own personal rules module based on my own tastes, but the core rules are highly neutral.[/sblock]

Wut?

You do know that I am arguing for a game that is designed to be tailored to fit almost "all" playstyles?

 

[Sadras]

In game design there is always a skeleton first. You build your base mechanical system and work from there. Being easy or hard to kill is a particular playstyle and is easily taken care of with specific options.

In all fairness they have not shown us the full DMG which I'm hoping has plenty of highlighted blue parts wherein I'm sure you will find a mechanic which will increase the lethalness of the game.

IMO, a good trait for a game system is one that can easily adopt/incorporate house rules without causing further headaches for the DM as lets face it, we are a fussy bunch.

Why not rather start a thread where posters can discuss how one could go about increasing the lethalness within 5e through a module?

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Well this thread is more about designers leaving their personal preferences at the door as much as possible when designing a game.

 

[Morrus]

Well this thread is more about designers leaving their personal preferences at the door as much as possible when designing a game.

My game's screwed then.

So is D&D throughout history. Lucky that never got popular!

 

[Meatboy]

Sorry OP no system can ever be neutral. Even looking at DnD the fact that its a game based around dungeons, quasi historical arms and civilizations, magic and monsters and everything else that makes the game DnD, is going to have an impact on the rules and therefor ruin any chance at neutrality.

Even the less setting specific rule sets will require specific rules in order to cover all the corner cases. Starships->rules, magic->rules, post apocalyptic zombie cyborgs -> rules. Its far easier for designers to concentrate on the things that make their game unique. Of course for the designers at WotC its a good idea to try to cast as wide a net as you can to maximize the returns on your investments. That's just good business. For the rest of us just doing what we want all I can say is. Balls to that. I'll make what I want.

 

[MichaelSomething]

There's always GURPS!