In Defence of D&D: The "Good Enough" System

[MarkChevallier]

We can all agree that the D&D community is split at the moment. People have different opinions on many rules issues, on play style, on the place of magic in the game, on customisability, on basically everything you can mention.

But all these people were all D&D fans once; they all played the game, and presumably enjoyed playing it, even if they still disagreed with Rogues getting sneak attack on every flanking attack, or thought wizard spell preparation was stupid and should be a spell point system, or thought fighters should be able to do lots of amazing feats in battle.

So why did they keep playing? Why enjoy a system with flaws? I don't think most players of D&D were entirely happy with it; more-or-less everyone I know had some kind of problem with the rules, in one edition or another.

I think it's because the game was, purely and simply, good enough for them. It's a game that's commonly played, you can always find people to share a table with, it shares a common language and common referents, and the problems you have? They just aren't bad enough to force you out the door. It's a fun game to have fun times with friends and create a) epic stories or b) slapstick buffonery or c) gritty tales of sword and sorcery or d) all of the above and more.

D&D was never perfect, because it couldn't be perfect for everyone - everyone has a different idea for their perfect game. It had to be just good enough for everyone.

And what mistake did they make with D&D 4E? They tried to perfect it for a particular part of the community (including, of course, the designers themselves). They twiddled some of those dials, and it became a much better, much more enjoyable game for, let's arbitrarily say, 40% of the playerbase. For 20%, it was still "good enough". For 40%, though, it no longer was good enough. It had departed from their vision of the game, it no longer did what they wanted it to.

What lesson does this give us for 5E?

I think the most important lesson is to try and not aim for perfection; aim for "good enough", for as many people as possible, and then make it as good as you can without pushing it out of that bracket.

It also warns us not to innovate too much, in an attempt to get the game closer to your vision of perfection, because your meat is another man's poison.

I think the designers behind 5E know this; I think that's what they're trying to do. I certainly hope so. I want to see D&D become the Good Enough system again.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That might be true of the the base system, but given the designers' comments on modularity, I don't think they're merely aiming for "good enough". More like, here's a good enough base system, and here are a bunch of optional rules that you can use to upgrade the system to great (for you).

 

[Frostmarrow]

I agree. D&D was always quirky and many other systems were objectively better. However, the size of the fanbase has made it possible to always find a group. Moreover I think the inherent controversy in the game has kept being a D&D-player interesting. I find making paladin available to all races and alignments a mistake since the controversy surrounding the paladin was fun! Also, minimizing the alignment system was similarily a mistake since the flaws with it was a hot subject to talk about. It was never perfect but there was a lot of traction.

Another thing I agree with is that innovations should be kept to a minimum. I love to read about new mechanics but somehow I wish for standard D&D to be traditional and familiar. D&D-fans enjoy picking the system a part and gripe about this and that but there are a lot of pretty farfetched D&D:isms that we just accept only because they have always been that way.

"The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from." Agent Smith

 

[MarkChevallier]

That might be true of the the base system, but given the designers' comments on modularity, I don't think they're merely aiming for "good enough". More like, here's a good enough base system, and here are a bunch of optional rules that you can use to upgrade the system to great (for you).

Which is fine! Optional rules are great, and if they help people find their own personal perfection I'm 100% for that. I speak above of the default though, and I do think it has to return to the "good enough" D&D of yore.

 

[Plane Sailing]

And what mistake did they make with D&D 4E? They tried to perfect it for a particular part of the community (including, of course, the designers themselves). They twiddled some of those dials, and it became a much better, much more enjoyable game for, let's arbitrarily say, 40% of the playerbase. For 20%, it was still "good enough". For 40%, though, it no longer was good enough. It had departed from their vision of the game, it no longer did what they wanted it to.

Note to thread participants - Mark has attempted to use an example to frame th e general issue of D&D being "good enough". If you love 4e and disagree with his assessment here, please let that slide and in this thread just focus on the topic at hand.

I don't want any problems from people attempting to defend perceived slights when none is intended thanks.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I agree that one of the strengths of D&D has been its "good enough" rule set. Certainly on the early couple of decades it was simpler than pretty much any of the RPGs which came after it, but that just made it easier to set a game up and introduce people to it.

If 5e truly has a "basic +extras" approach, and the basics is good enough for the simple games of the early days, then I think it would put 5e in a strong position.

Cheers

 

[MarkChevallier]

Sorry, you're right, I shouldn't have said "mistake", that's only from my own perspective, and from the point of view of looking at a "good enough" D&D as a good thing.

Apologies to anyone who feels I've slighted their system.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think "good enough" is not only fine, but superior, when there are several competing, intersecting interests on a given piece of the system (e.g. playability, multiple widespread and popular playstyle preferences, balance, etc.) That's what gives us stuff such as "armor as AC" and hit points (arguably).

I think "good enough" is lousy when there are multiple ways to accomplish more or less the same thing (and mainly satisfy the criteria above), and we end up having to settle for really no good reason. That's what keeping "races as classes" would have been in later editions, as the niche benefits of such not only don't out weigh the costs for most people, but also those niche benefits are readily obtainable by other means (arguably).

I think "good enough" is not my first choice, but alright, when the thing is not all that important to most people in the first place, or the thing is a placeholder for something that isn't that important to the design right now, even though it might be later. This is the concession to "only so many hours in the day." In Basic D&D, that's what "races as classes" was (arguably).

Realistic assessments of limits should stop short of becoming an "ode to mediocrity".

 

[TwinBahamut]

I don't agree with this sentiment at all.

A game is never going to be perfect. We'll always have to deal with "good enough". But perfection should always be the goal, because improvement, refinement, and evolution are always necessary (because of the "never going to be perfect" thing). Saying that something should not strive towards genuine perfection is the same thing as saying that a flawed game that annoys people and drives away fans is the ideal. I won't agree with that.

Anyways, simply put, 3E was not "good enough". Neither is 4E, for that matter. I think there are tons of fans who feel that way. WotC needs to strive towards perfection in order to create a game that is good enough for those people.

 

[Minigiant]

I also think "good enough" is a "good enough" goal. Make a game where a large percentage won't hate it and will go at least 2 steps of "settling" for it. Perfection is nice but the "unity" goal is hard to reach as it is, why add more chance of failure.