Should game designers remain neutral when designing D&D?

[Derren]

Ideally, game designers would be familiar with and enjoy a wide variety of play styles, and work towards creating a game that supports as many of those as possible (when trying to make a game meant to have a wide appeal, such as D&D).

In practice they get a list from marketing about the sizes of different target groups and are told to make a game for group X and Y and which supports making supplements for Z years.

I think writing 5E is a lot less creative as some people think. The core decision will be made according to economical data.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

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.

I don't think some of you are fully understanding what I mean by neutral. First off, do we all understand "playstyle"? An example of playstyle would be a gritty game, or a game based completely around story to the point where death is only agree upon. Spaceships and other things is not playstyle, that would be more genre.

Once again, for example, 4th edition presented death as something not easily achieved. You actually had to jump through hoops in order to die and some of us don't like that style of play. Being neutral is having two separate options available that would allow one group to insert option A for gritty or option B for non-gritty.

It can happen but some designers can't leave what they like at the door.

 

[steenan]

There are two parts of the equation.

On one hand, it's impossible to do a creative work if one isn't passionate about it, at least a little. If you don't like what you're creating, it won't be good. Better leave designing games for other playstyles to other people and make something you can get invested in.

On the other hand, when creating something out of passion, it's easy to fall prey to one's own traps. Making assumptions that aren't communicated. Putting in some ideas one likes, even when they don't fit. Doing things habitually, instead of intentionally. To prevent that, it's necessary to periodically take a step back, review what was created and how it corresponds to the design goals.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A game is known for its flavor as much as it is for the operability of its rules. Designing with "neutral" as a target isn't so much a desired goal as it is a side effect of the designer's failure to inject any flavor or personality to the project.

The most common cause for this flavorless neutrality is the project that is designed by committee. The whole reason we even have a defined feel for D&D that makes it somewhat different from other types of fantasy is because Dave & Gary crafted it according to thier own vision and gave it a distinctive flavor that they enjoyed.

I don't really know if rpgs would have even become a thing if original D&D was designed first and foremost as a neutral game.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

A game is known for its flavor as much as it is for the operability of its rules. Designing with "neutral" as a target isn't so much a desired goal as it is a side effect of the designer's failure to inject any flavor or personality to the project.

The most common cause for this flavorless neutrality is the project that is designed by committee. The whole reason we even have a defined feel for D&D that makes it somewhat different from other types of fantasy is because Dave & Gary crafted it according to thier own vision and gave it a distinctive flavor that they enjoyed.

I don't really know if rpgs would have even become a thing if original D&D was designed first and foremost as a neutral game.

Liking creatures of fantasy is not the same as liking a game loaded with magic items or having death be a rarity.

D&D has already been established so we are past that part. What we now see is the fact that there are multiple styles that people play in and this was supposed to have been the opportunity to do that. This even happens over at the Paizo forums. Parts of the game will be shown as disliked by the majority of gamers, but they remain because a certain designer likes them and sees no problem with them. Mike Mearls does this with regards to death. Some people want the game to flow as is and let the dice along with poor decisions be the deciding factor of death. Mike apparently doesn't like for characters to die so he continues with a death system that makes you jump through hoops in order to die. This has been brought to his attention and he sees no problem with it. Of course he doesn't because he is letting his own personal preference make the decision instead of what would benefit the majority.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating two sets of options instead of having one baked into the system. Most of the time you end up with that article of clothing that has the loose thread that if pulled, can sometimes cause the clothing to unravel.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Liking creatures of fantasy is not the same as liking a game loaded with magic items or having death be a rarity.

D&D has already been established so we are past that part. What we now see is the fact that there are multiple styles that people play in and this was supposed to have been the opportunity to do that. This even happens over at the Paizo forums. Parts of the game will be shown as disliked by the majority of gamers, but they remain because a certain designer likes them and sees no problem with them. Mike Mearls does this with regards to death. Some people want the game to flow as is and let the dice along with poor decisions be the deciding factor of death. Mike apparently doesn't like for characters to die so he continues with a death system that makes you jump through hoops in order to die. This has been brought to his attention and he sees no problem with it. Of course he doesn't because he is letting his own personal preference make the decision instead of what would benefit the majority.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating two sets of options instead of having one baked into the system. Most of the time you end up with that article of clothing that has the loose thread that if pulled, can sometimes cause the clothing to unravel.

There is nothing written in a rulebook that I am incapable of ignoring. If it becomes a case of needing to ignore too much to enjoy the game fully then I will just play something else. An edition needs some kind of identity to be considered its own game at all.

Otherwise your game turns into Mexicali Soup.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

There is nothing written in a rulebook that I am incapable of ignoring. If it becomes a case of needing to ignore too much to enjoy the game fully then I will just play something else. An edition needs some kind of identity to be considered its own game at all.

Otherwise your game turns into Mexicali Soup.

I don't pay for rules that I have to ignore. I don't mind paying for options though.

Where is the disconnect?

Let's look at it this way. What makes D&D identifiable besides the name on the cover?

1: Certain creatures such as dragons, mind flayers, beholders etc...
2: Magic items.
3: Class based system.
4: Dungeons.
5: Dodge and Armour being rolled into one.
6: Vancian Spellcasting.

I am sure there a more but we will leave it at that. None of those are really specific to playstyle when talking about D&D. I don't count 4th edition because it hasn't been around long enough and lots of people stopped playing it because they felt it wasn't D&D. You can still have a neutral game system while keeping a games iconic nature.

What would you list as being iconic to D&D?

 

[Mistwell]

It sounds like you want a generic fantasy rules system.

That's not traditionally D&D.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

It sounds like you want a generic fantasy rules system.

That's not traditionally D&D.

Sounds like you are not understanding to be honest.

 

[Mistwell]

Sounds like you are not understanding to be honest.

So explain how your concept is different from a generic fantasy game. A generic fantasy game is a tool kit that easily adapts to any playstyle and has no inherent assumed playstyle. How is that different from what you want? As someone else said, there's always GURPS.