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

[innerdude]

The last 2-3 weeks, the majority of the threads on here, regardless of topic--hit points, Vancian casting, ability scores, multiclassing--ultimately come down to one common theme:

How much can D&D 5e stray from "being D&D" before it becomes "not D&D" (and by inference, no longer a viable product for its intended market)?

If the forums here are any indication, to a lot of people being "not D&D" is a bigger sin than being a mediocre RPG.

In my mind, it's possible that one of D&D's biggest strengths--its long-standing traditions--may now be just as much, if not more of a hindrance to the ongoing success of the game.

There's a huge difference between saying, "How can we make the best RPG possible?" versus "How can we make the best version of the D&D RPG possible?"

Look, I get it, D&D is D&D because it has a certain . . . flavor. Sensibilities. Common tropes. Take those away and it's just not quite "D&D" anymore.

But I've got to be honest--if 5e so far doesn't feel all that inspiring to me, I think it's because the designers are "stuck," as it were, trying to make the best version of D&D that they can--rather than simply being able to make the best RPG possible.

D&D 5e is potentially the most popular RPG system in the world's "last hurrah"--and if it's going to go out, I want it to go out with a bang. I want real innovation. I just spent the last couple of days checking out FantasyCraft. And while the overall rules feel intensely heavy, I LOVE the fact that no assumption has been left unturned. There's ZERO adherence to the credo, "Well, it's always been this way, we can't change it."

The thing that worries me most about D&D 5e from what we've seen so far, the designers seem to be risk-adverse. That it's more important for recognizable "D&D-isms" to be present and accounted for than for the rules to be shaped by innovative thinking.

It's clear that they were trying to push the envelope in 4e; it just didn't work out the way they wanted. But FantasyCraft has been clear proof to me that there's still massive amounts of room to innovate the D&D "core."

I'm becoming increasingly worried that truly innovative, improved game rules and ideas are getting tossed out simply because they don't meet the audience's view of "what D&D should be"--or more appropriately, what the designers perceive their audience's view of "what D&D should be."

Frankly, Wizards of the Coast, give me the best possible RPG you can make. If it happens to look and feel closer to some other game than the "historic" versions of D&D, I'm okay with that. If it looks and feels like a new game entirely, I think I'm okay with that too. If it manages to feel very much like D&D editions of yore, all the better.

But the way to "win" the battle going forward is to have the best product on the market, that appeals to the broadest range of people. 4e has already proven that the D&D brand name has cachet. Many people will buy your products just because of the logo printed on the cover, even if the game itself is different.

This being the case, make the best RPG possible. Frankly, you're the only RPG company in the world with the history, tradition, and corporate backing to truly move the needle forward in RPG game design. Indie games and self-publishing are neat--but the industry moves with you.

Give us something that we, the fans, want to pick up and proudly march with ourselves. Something we can point to as being a high achievement in game design, regardless of whether it "feels like D&D."

Don't shove us along with some half-baked cocktail of rules that's more the product of pandering than innovative thinking.

 

[variant]

What makes a good RPG is subjective. What you are saying is that you want something that you want, and if everybody else wants something else, they are wrong.

 

[Daztur]

Well think of computer games. I love the Civilization series (or at least the even numbered ones) but TBS games just aren't that popular anymore. But if the Civilization devs said "we're not going to be beholden to the past, we're not going to make just the best Civilization game possible, we're going to be making the best computer game possible! Therefore get ready for some FPS gameplay!" I'd be pretty damn peeved, even if it was awesome FPS gameplay. A lot of things that could be added to D&D would be things that I love in other games, but that have no business being shoe horned into D&D anymore than I want FPS missions in Civilization.

 

[innerdude]

Of course I'm saying "I want want I want." This entire 5e forum is basically, "I want 5e to be THIS."

But my point is more than that. The point is that I hope that Monte and Mike are looking at potential rules and saying, "Does this improve the game?" And I hope that more often than not, if the answer is "Yes!" they're looking to insert those elements into the game, regardless of whether it makes the game feel more or less "like D&D."

It's the Catch-22 of 5e---make it too "retro," and everyone wonders what the fuss is about. "Heck, I can go straight back to 1e or Labyrinth Lord, I don't need to shell out $100+ for this." Make it too "modern," and both the 4e and 3e fans start getting up in arms about which edition is getting short shrift--"Well, 3e does it better than that / 4e has a much better mechanic for that."

I don't want the designers to get too caught up thinking that "making it feel like D&D" is the most important criteria. If a player wants it to "feel like D&D"--whichever edition of D&D said player is referring to--the player should play what "feels like D&D" to them. 5e doesn't need to be saddled with this.

To me the most important criteria is making the best RPG possible. Create mechanics that produce a high-quality RPG experience, that in some ways adheres to the spirit of D&D, without being beholden to it.

 

[GX.Sigma]

4e was the one where they threw away all the traditions and tried to make the best game they could. Everyone saw how that turned out, and it's pretty clear they're not doing that again anytime soon.

I for one totally agree with the developers' goal of making 5e meet people's expectations about what they expect D&D to be. I started with 4e, and it was very off-putting to find that it didn't match anything I had been hearing about D&D through nerd culture--no Chaotic Neutral, no Hold Person, no saving throws, weird power system, healing surges, action points, cosmology, etc. The few perfunctory nods to tradition were pretty clearly shoehorned in (Turn Undead as a burst damage attack, saving throws as the Pokemon "flip a coin" mechanic, half-assed Wizard spellbooks, etc.).

It turns out D&D is a pretty specific thing. It's not like a videogame, where each sequel can be totally different from previous ones and be good for different reasons. It's a hobby that people heavily invest in for certain reasons. It's like if there was suddenly a "new edition" of knitting where you don't use a needle, or a "new edition" of basketball that doesn't have a basket. People would be pissed.

 

[innerdude]

Well think of computer games. I love the Civilization series (or at least the even numbered ones) but TBS games just aren't that popular anymore. But if the Civilization devs said "we're not going to be beholden to the past, we're not going to make just the best Civilization game possible, we're going to be making the best computer game possible! Therefore get ready for some FPS gameplay!" I'd be pretty damn peeved, even if it was awesome FPS gameplay. A lot of things that could be added to D&D would be things that I love in other games, but that have no business being shoe horned into D&D anymore than I want FPS missions in Civilization.

I don't think I'm making this comparison. Clearly D&D isn't GURPS, or Rolemaster, or Hero, or Ars Magica.

But there's a metric ton of leeway in the d20 system core for interpretation.

If I want to play "old" D&D, with an "old" D&D feeling, I'm hardly stopped from doing so in any meaningful way by simply (wait for it) playing an old version of D&D. Only 4e players have any leg to stand on to complain in this regard, since 4e isn't OGL. If 4e support goes away, they're the fans with the most to lose.

Personally, I'd rather 5e be an RPG I absolutely LOVE that may only bear a passing resemblance to previous editions, than an RPG I'm basically "meh" about, but recreates some mish-mash of 1e/2e/3e/4e "D&D feeling."

Create a game people will love. Very few people will care if it "feels like D&D" at that point, because they'll be to busy playing it. And if "feeling like D&D" is more important to some fans . . . there's more resources to count that will give them the option to play D&D so it "feels right to them."

I'm not saying abandon every last D&D carryover. I am saying create an awesome fantasy RPG, using the d20 core mechanic. Worry about whether it "feels like D&D" later.

 

[Li Shenron]

Frankly, Wizards of the Coast, give me the best possible RPG you can make.

Such thing doesn't exist. It's like saying "please (insert car brand) make the best possible vehicle you can make". Best for what? The best supersports car can be the best on a highway but not off-road, while the best SUV can be the best off-road but not in the city traffic.

If WotC makes a product called D&D, I want it to be D&D. If I go to a restaurant and order a hamburger, I expect a decent hamburger. I'll be pissed off if it's mediocre, but if they give me a soyburger I'll be pissed off even if it is excellent, because that's not what I asked and paid for...

If WotC wants to make another RPG because they think it's for the best, they have all the rights to do so I am probably going to buy it, just give it a different name.

 

[GX.Sigma]

If I want to play "old" D&D, with an "old" D&D feeling, I'm hardly stopped from doing so in any meaningful way by simply (wait for it) playing an old version of D&D.

Here's the thing: Lots of us want to play a game with an "old" D&D feeling that doesn't use antiquated, broken, un-fun, unfair rules.

 

[innerdude]

Here's the thing: Lots of us want to play a game with an "old" D&D feeling that doesn't use antiquated, broken, un-fun, unfair rules.

I get where you're coming from, Sigma. But if 5e is going to be that game, it's going to have to be a radical shift in complexity (at least the core, modules / dials to be added later).

Like I said in the OP, D&D's traditions are both its biggest blessing, and also its biggest curse.

I guess I'm just of the opinion that making a ruleset that's elegant and fun to play should trump concerns of "that's not enough like D&D."

Maybe the better question is, how many antiquated, broken, un-fun carryovers are people willing to put up with to make sure that 5e "feels like D&D"?

 

[GX.Sigma]

I get where you're coming from, Sigma. But if 5e is going to be that game, it's going to have to be a radical shift in complexity (at least the core, modules / dials to be added later).

BD&D was simple but very inelegant. 3.x was elegant but very complex. My ideal game lies somewhere in the middle, not off to the side.

Maybe the better question is, how many antiquated, broken, un-fun carryovers are people willing to put up with to make sure that 5e "feels like D&D"?

None. The "antiquated, broken, un-fun" things I'm talking about are things like conflicting subsystems, PC imbalance, broken math, Ivory Tower game design (including "traps" and "feat tax"), etc.--those don't have much bearing on whether the game "feels like D&D." At least, I hope nobody equates a D&D feeling with mystery attack matrices and alignment-change XP penalties.

Create a game people will love. Very few people will care if it "feels like D&D" at that point, because they'll be to busy playing it.

That is false and you know it.