D&D 5E Review design goals

[Li Shenron]

We're roughly half a year into the playtesting process, with a bunch of rules packets and a couple of additions released.

I have the not-so-comfortable feeling sometimes from what I see in packets or weekly WotC articles, that the designers are not always keeping their original design goals, both general and specific, in mind or literally printed in front of them all the time while doing design work... Of course design goals can change or adapt, but that's not my point here.

My point and question to you is: how do you feel WotC is currently keeping up with the design goals that they have setup for themselves?

Here's a link to their original kick-off design goals list: http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120409

And here some spare info on design goals from designer's interviews: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=D+and+D+Next:+General+Information#Design+Goals

Some snippets from various sections in 5e early info on ENWorld (copied here since they're scattered around in the whole wiki):

[sblock]"However, we want alignment to be a tool, not a straightjacket, so the execution of those mechanics should serve that goal, and really only apply when dealing with the powerful, elemental forces of alignments, not someone who just behaves a certain way. Additionally, I believe we'll also want it to be easy for a DM to strip those mechanics out of his or her campaign, if the DM so chooses."

"In general, we want to make sure that everyone has a baseline level of competence in all three pillars of play (combat, interaction, and exploration)."

"Our primary goal is to produce a rules set that speaks to every incarnation of D&D. So if you are a diehard BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia enthusiast or have embraced 4th edition, loved 2nd edition, 3rd edition, or never moved on from 1st edition, we’re creating this game for you. Imagine a game where you can play the version of D&D you love best. And then imagine everyone plays at the same table, in the same adventure. We aim to make a universal game system that lets you play the game in whatever way, whatever style, with whatever focus you want, whether you want to kick down doors and kill monsters, engage in high intrigue, intense roleplaying, or simply to immerse yourself in a shared world. We’re creating a game where the mechanics can be as complex or as light as you want them. We’re creating the game you want to play."

Monsters: "What I can say about this goal that Monte is talking about is that we're working to provide the DM with really good world building tools. And it's important to provide information about the orcs place in D&D while making sure that a Monster remains relevant as the characters level up. They're might be an orc shaman, an orc champion or whatever for higher levels, but we also want the basic orc to be relevant at higher levels. We want it to be really easy for the DM to open the Monster Manual and drop an orc or iconic monsters into the game."

"While many DMs want to build monsters using the target numbers-based system that 4th edition uses, some DMs may want to build their monsters like PCs, adding levels of cleric onto orcs to create enemies that also have many class features. Some DMs may want to use templates to create everything from a fiendish hobgoblin to a vampiric half-celestial animated chair. So we'll need to find ways to support those needs, without mandating them."

"In general, I think that monsters should do what fans of D&D lore expect them to do, and if that means being really scary mechanically then so be it. I think there's room in the game for monsters that simply are more dangerous and deadly than others, just as I think there's room in the game for monsters whose purpose is to be interacted with, not fought. I also think it's good for monsters to exist that you don't want to face in a straight-up fight, but that you need to be prepared for or figure out a clever way to outwit rather than going in spells a-blazin'."

Crafting: "The goal is to make sure the rules for crafting things are present, and that you can opt into being a craftsman if you want as a player, but that doing so doesn't consume a significant portion of the resources you need for adventuring. We've tinkered with putting it in themes, for example, as a benefit that you just get."

"For movement and positioning, the goal is to focus more on terrain and interesting things to move to and around, rather than flanking and such."

"... we can offer lots of options to create the kinds of games that any individual DM and his or her players want to play. Want to run a game where players are always healed up to full hit points between fights? No problem; we’ve got rules for that. Want to run a game that is super-deadly with disposable characters? We can do that too, just by tweaking things like hit points, availability of self healing, and so forth."

"... our goal of making combat move faster across all levels, being easier to teach to new players, and also making sure that the kinds of effects we're putting into the game are big, meaty and significant so that you really feel their impact."

"The goal is to remove mechanics from alignment. It's a key part of the world, but not the rules or spells."

"One of the key hang ups we have with healing is trying to find a way to make the cleric optional. So, we're definitely aiming to make it so that you can remove classes, races, or entire types of magic without screwing up the game's balance. I think restricting that sort of thing is one of the ways that DMs like to make unique campaigns, so we want to allow for that."

"The XP system is the kind of thing where I want to do a few different systems and have the DM pick one (XP for treasure, XP for killing, XP for meeting story goals, etc) to establish the tone for his or her campaign."

"We definitely want the classes to be balanced, though having things exactly mathematically balanced isn't always the goal. If the fighter is 100% damage for example, then maybe this other class is 80% damage/combat and 20% exploration."

"What we're really getting at is that character creation should take as long as you want. If you want to jump into a game quickly, you can put together an easy character and not worry about too many of those options. But if you want to build the more complex character and go through the options and tweak it to be exactly what you want, then you have the time and options for that."

[/sblock]

And finally some links to the design goals of specific classes:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=D+and+D+Next:+Classes#Fighter+Design+Goals
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=D+and+D+Next:+Classes#Cleric+Design+Goals
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=D+and+D+Next:+Classes#Wizard+Design+Goals
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=D+and+D+Next:+Classes#Rogue+Design+Goals
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=D+and+D+Next:+Classes#Paladin+Design+Goals

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Anyone who has ever played any version of D&D must recognize and understand its most important elements.

I'm finding it difficult to recognise expertise dice as an important element of any edition of D&D. Not only is the mechanic (dice pool) foreign, but the concept is completely nebulous and has no grounding in any D&D icons.

 

[Evenglare]

It no longer feels like generic DND . it feels like Another edition where I am going to have to buy the rules all over again if I want to get official support for the game...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

We knew from the beginning that there needs to be a damage escalation system. Expertise dice seem to be a contender for that.
Bounded accuracy was a design goal. And in D&D levels always meant a steep increase in power. If expertise dice are the only new mechanic replacing thaco or BAB, it won´t be too far off from the original games...

as to the goals. I think Wizards is spot on. I still recognize many elements of many editions.

 

[Kinak]

I think it's important to reassess your goals periodically. In this situation, they may even want to post the changes they've made to them. Better to just get the arguments out of the way then put them off until launch.

"Our primary goal is to produce a rules set that speaks to every incarnation of D&D. So if you are a diehard BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia enthusiast or have embraced 4th edition, loved 2nd edition, 3rd edition, or never moved on from 1st edition, we’re creating this game for you. Imagine a game where you can play the version of D&D you love best. And then imagine everyone plays at the same table, in the same adventure. We aim to make a universal game system that lets you play the game in whatever way, whatever style, with whatever focus you want, whether you want to kick down doors and kill monsters, engage in high intrigue, intense roleplaying, or simply to immerse yourself in a shared world. We’re creating a game where the mechanics can be as complex or as light as you want them. We’re creating the game you want to play."

Honestly, it'd make me feel a lot better if they formally abandoned this goal.

It seems so... obviously unachievable that it makes me uncomfortable. Either they seriously think they can do this or they're lying. I'm not really sure which is worse.

To say nothing of the fact that I can already play the editions of D&D that I love best. They're sitting on the bookshelf behind me. And, thanks to the OGL, I also have an endless toolbox to recreate them from scratch if I needed to.

They need to build a game that bridges the gap between the 4e players and non-4e players. That's already hard enough. Going beyond that and suggesting that each player can experience the same game as their edition of choice... makes me really worry if they understand what the experiences of those editions are.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[DEFCON 1]

I refuse to beholden WotC to have every single rule that appears in every single playtest packet to line-for-line apply to one of their stated design goals. To me... that is just the ultimate in stupidity.

They know what they want to achieve. They are allowed the license to play around a bit to figure out the best way to reach that. If some rule appears in a specific playtest packet that seems to run counter to their original goals... I just keep telling myself one damn important thing:

These playtest packets are NOT FINAL RULES. Most likely, many of the things in these packets WON'T BE IN the final rules. So don't get my panties in a bunch over any specific rule... because if something doesn't speak to me or doesn't seem to work when I TEST IT... I'll just tell them that simply and honestly in their surveys and believe that I'm not the only one who thinks that way.

And I will let WotC do what they do without second-guessing them. Because to do so implies that I know what is better for them to do for their playtest than they do. Which we can all agree is complete and utter BS.

 

[Jester David]

We're pretty deep in the playtest but they're still fine tuning, so it's hard to say what the end product will be like.
Right now, we moved from just testing the starter kit to testing what amounts to the Expert box and then some. We haven't seen any of the modules so it's hard to tell how those are going to meet the design goals, and since they're a HUGE part of the design it's really hard to judge most of the goals.

On paper, it looks like the game is drifting away from what they intended, as things are getting more complex and things like feats and skills are being integrated while other combat actions have been added.
In practice, they're seeing what they can add that's needed and what they can potentially strip away. I imagine many of the additions are going to be made optional to the core experience for the final release.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think it's important to reassess your goals periodically. In this situation, they may even want to post the changes they've made to them. Better to just get the arguments out of the way then put them off until launch.

Can't xp you again yet, but you nailed the purpose of the thread!

Honestly, it'd make me feel a lot better if they formally abandoned this goal.

It seems so... obviously unachievable that it makes me uncomfortable.

I'm not familiar with that system, but didn't GURPS kind-of managed to achieve something similar?

To say nothing of the fact that I can already play the editions of D&D that I love best.

It's absolutely true, but do you have enough people to play with you? I guess you do, but this is just to say that the purpose above is to put lovers of different editions and styles together so that the new system allows at least some cohabitation in the same game. (Edit: my favourite edition is 3.0, but I really want something that takes less time as a DM, and my players won't play unless it takes significantly less effort to them than 3e)

They need to build a game that bridges the gap between the 4e players and non-4e players.

Well I think they need to do more than that For example, they need to build a game that allows both "combat as war" and "combat as sport". 4e was strongly "combat as sport", 3e was mildly titled towards "combat as sport", hence bridging the gap would mean solidly into "combat as sport"... still alienating the other side quite a bit.

 

[howandwhy99]

I still think they are missing a majority of the rules for the game. Why do they continue to bulk define what the playing pieces can do, but refuse to define the board within which they operate? I'm not suggesting they start creating adventures, just that they bring back (in some form) all of the adventure and setting creation rules.

 

[Kinak]

Can't xp you again yet, but you nailed the purpose of the thread!

Thanks!

I'm not familiar with that system, but didn't GURPS kind-of managed to achieve something similar?

Sort of, but not to nearly the extent the D&D team is talking about.

If you take GURPS as a whole, you can build damned near anything with it. But they're very up front about the fact that the group decides what sort of game is being played, not each individual.

Which is to say: even though you can build Superman, Conan, Sherlock Holmes, Cthulhu, a wuxia ninja, and a grizzled beat cop as PCs under their system... doesn't necessarily mean you should put them all in the same group.

Even assuming that fits your setting and ends up fairly balanced, if Cthulhu's player wants fast combat and Superman's player wants a tactical slugfest, one of them's going to be disappointed.

It's absolutely true, but do you have enough people to play with you? I guess you do, but this is just to say that the purpose above is to put lovers of different editions and styles together so that the new system allows at least some cohabitation in the same game. (Edit: my favourite edition is 3.0, but I really want something that takes less time as a DM, and my players won't play unless it takes significantly less effort to them than 3e)

It would be great to get fans of different editions around the same table and I think that's a laudable goal, but I think it's disingenuous to say that they'd be able to play 5e like their favored edition. Some things are decided by one person, some things are decided by everyone together.

For example, one of the players in my current Pathfinder game hates tracking fiddly round-to-round modifiers. For her to play in the style she likes, the other two players would have had to change the characters they'd chosen (a bard and buffing cleric, respectively) or never use their abilities on her character, drastically reducing their power.

On the flip side, I also hate tracking round-to-round modifiers, but her character has cleave (which gives a round-to-round modifier in Pathfinder). For me to GM in the style I wanted, she couldn't have that feat and the other two characters could never use debuffs.

Even if 5e is built from the ground up with a "fiddly buffs/debuffs" module, it's not the choice of a player or a DM whether to use it. It's the entire table's choice. It's a choice between playing the game like OD&D and playing the game like 3rd.

So the OD&D DM can't sit next to the OD&D player with the 3rd Edition players, all interacting with the game how they choose. Whether that choice is made by the designers or pushed down to my table, it still means there's an actual compromise being made.

I can eat my cake or have my cake, but I just don't like the designers telling me I can do both when that's plainly not true.

Well I think they need to do more than that For example, they need to build a game that allows both "combat as war" and "combat as sport". 4e was strongly "combat as sport", 3e was mildly titled towards "combat as sport", hence bridging the gap would mean solidly into "combat as sport"... still alienating the other side quite a bit.

Yeah, agreed. They've got plenty of ground to cover without shooting for (as far as I can tell) completely impossible goals.

I just want them to say "we can choose or each table can choose, but each player can't choose."

Letting people choose their favorite classes from all editions, rebalanced to be near each other is... a monumental goal, but one that's theoretically achievable. But playing an OD&D fighter sitting next to a 4e warlord is no more playing OD&D than it is playing 4e. It's something new and different.

Which is cool... awesome even. I just get worried when they promise things that don't even make sense to me.

Cheers!
Kinak