Should game designers remain neutral when designing D&D?

[Ahnehnois]

There is, of course, only one truly playstyle-neutral set of rules. They're called the laws of physics. A game can never perfectly model a world, so there are biases introduced through rules. Abstractions make some things easier than they are and some things harder. Some real "rules" are ignored, while other rules our world doesn't have are created.

Every creative process faces the same challenge: a real person is the product of millions of years of evolution and all kinds of complex circumstances beyond our understanding, so how can something that we just make up out of our own limited minds be as real?

That being said, it is clear that some games are a lot more descriptive than others, which are prescriptive and thus less "neutral". If the original point was that designers should avoid using metagame agendas to build the game (like trying to build around a particular party size or composition, or trying to create a particular path of advancement for characters to follow, or trying to impose some kind of "balance" that doesn't exist in life) then that I can get behind.

 

[Mistwell]

You have to be very careful what rules you start pulling out because the game may end up falling apart.

You do? Name a rule that causes the game to fall apart if you pull it out?

 

[Mark CMG]

Really? This is what you're going with? The work to incorporate earlier editions into the game doesn't count because the designers weren't REAL players of the earlier editions?

Yeah... I think you're grasping at straws here.

Just pointing out a potential flaw. I was rather hoping someone like you would point me toward a place where they did do something similar, like maybe a number of them were gaming at NTRPG Con, which I don't attend, or some other source. Clearly a missed opportunity. We'll see what the game looks like come June. I've got my fingers crossed, despite the lack of initiative. I'm also hoping the other missed opportunity, jumping on board the OGL again earlier enough in the process to avail themselves of tons of outside design expertise, doesn't come back to haunt them either.

 

[the Jester]

I disagree with the premise that a game should be designed to be as system-neutral as possible. Look at, for example, the World of Darkness games. Strip the White Wolf playstyle out, and you have.... not World of Darkness.

I think we, as D&D players, are in a weird, special position, because D&D was the first RPG. It's what most of us cut our teeth on, and because of that, we all want it to appeal to us. In addition, all the talk about supporting all playstyles has led us to expect a style-neutral game from 5e.

However, I don't know that it's possible to completely strip playstyle from a game. I'm a huge advocate of supporting multiple playstyles, but I think the base game WILL have an inherent implied playstyle simply because any combination of rules implies an inherent playstyle. What I hope is that the implied playstyle is only lightly implied and easily changed.

The whole "hard to die" issue that XunValdorl_of_Kilsek is focused on is one area where I think, to succeed, 5e MUST be extremely customizable. There are lots of high-lethality groups. There are lots of low-lethality groups. There are even lots of NO-lethality groups! I don't care where the default is set, as long as the "dial" that lets me set the game's lethality is sufficiently flexible, and I'm pretty sure that the designers are very aware of it. (At least I hope so!)

I wouldn't call D&D a work of art.

For the record, for well over a decade I have considered and proclaimed my D&D campaign my favorite art form. So I disagree here- but this is absolutely a subjective thing, so think of this as a difference in perspective rather than an argument or assertion.

Now diceless isn't a playstyle, it's a totally different kind of game.

This is an interesting issue. I assume- as it sounds like you do- that the comment about 'diceless' as a playstyle was referring to resolving things without dice, including combat issues. I'll agree that in that case it's generally an issue of mechanics, not style.

OTOH whoever said "but 3 sessions without rolling!" is talking about a distinct playstyle- it's not "truly" diceless, but rather usually diceless, because these groups do roll the dice when the rules call for it; it's just that those circumstances (e.g. combat) almost never arise.

If we're going to call that a "diceless playstyle", okay, 5e should support that... but I wouldn't use "diceless" to describe it.

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.

Mostly agreed (although you certainly don't have to jump through hoops to die in MY 4e campaign! - at least, not until epic levels, when death is designed to be a speed bump).

Sticking to the lethality/healing topic, I really don't much like the 5e take on Hit Dice. (The full recovery on long rest thing bothers me in 4e, too.) Systems that modify lethality by working with HD are likely to remain too heavy-healing for me. I just ran a couple of 1e games, and the old "1 hit point per day" was extremely refreshing. I like lingering wounds. I like that the pcs sometimes need to rest up for a while. A Hit Dice-based system may be able to appeal to me if set up correctly, but we'll see what it looks like in the end.

There is, of course, only one truly playstyle-neutral set of rules. They're called the laws of physics.

I don't know- I'd argue that even a game that tries to set its rules as a world-describing set of fantasy physics, which is what I thought 3e did (and did pretty well), implies a playstyle. Heck, even if you use the actual laws of physics, they imply a certain playstyle- certainly not the heroic "My 10th level fighter will jump down a 50' shaft and attack" playstyle that D&D usually employs.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Options that are created by the designers to plug into the game have been tested so that the game works fine with them or without them. You have to be very careful what rules you start pulling out because the game may end up falling apart. Also, I don't really purchase RPG's just to pull them apart. I could save myself a ton of money and just come up with my own game. Having printed options still puts everyone on the same page, especially when you are someone who plays with multiple groups. I don't want to have to homebrew each group I with, but having those options printed in the books gives everyone an idea of what kind of game a specific group could play.

You do? Name a rule that causes the game to fall apart if you pull it out?

Me and XunValdorl don't agree on a lot, and I think he over stated it a bit, but he is right in general here. Let me give some examples...

In a 3e game that no one track encumbrance Str looses a lot of meaning, and you may not realize how that trickles down the balance chain. The wizard puts an 8 in str because it is useless to him, but then carries 3 spell books full of spells, a magic staff, 5 potions, a dozen scrolls and 3-5 wands most of the time, plus treasure and extra cloths and components... you don't realize how much that all adds up.

In a 2e game where you change initiative and just say roll d20, add dex mod highest first... sounds like you just made it easier, but in reality you stop a lot of spell interrupts, change the balance on a lot of weapons...

In 4e if I play low magic, and at level 12 only dropped a +1 weapon, a +1 armor, and a +1 wand to my 5 players, they are going to be at a disadvantage, but it is more then just numbers you don't realize how the lack of options for daily and encounter powers on items hurt...

In rifts the whole world changes depending on this one question, since 1MD of damage =100 SD of damage then does 100SD of damage = 1MD. I've played and run both ways, and it very much changes the setting...

Old World of darkness has some funny things hidden in humanity rules and if you disregard them you end up with some problems...

Old World of darkness is 200% harder if the GM/story teller is stingy with regaining will power

 

[MichaelSomething]

Once you realize that all rules are optional or modifiable your gaming life will get easier.

True, but not everyone has the finesse, foresight, and understanding to modify a game to better suit their needs.

Some people will remove attacks of opportunity from the game because they're too complex, but be surprised when monsters constantly switch between targets.

Others will remove different exp charts for classes and limit magic item buying, and wonder why mages are so much more effective then fighters.

People will call Pun Pun an example of how broken a system is, but not understand his core ability was meant to be a worldbuilding tool and not a PC option.


Not everyone wants to use Linux

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Some people will remove attacks of opportunity from the game because they're too complex, but be surprised when monsters constantly switch between targets.

or worse, why fighters can't stop the guy from charging right past him...

 

[Dominar Rygel XVI]

True, but not everyone has the finesse, foresight, and understanding to modify a game to better suit their needs.

Some people will remove attacks of opportunity from the game because they're too complex, but be surprised when monsters constantly switch between targets.

Others will remove different exp charts for classes and limit magic item buying, and wonder why mages are so much more effective then fighters.

People will call Pun Pun an example of how broken a system is, but not understand his core ability was meant to be a worldbuilding tool and not a PC option.


Not everyone wants to use Linux

Very well spoken! Could not agree more.

 

[Morrus]

An option was designed to be ignorable, a rule isn't. Some rules are quite vital to making the game work, and removing them would hurt the game. Other rules are not as vital and can be removed no problem. It would be helpful to know which one is which.

So it is just a permission thing, then.

 

[Ahnehnois]

For the record, for well over a decade I have considered and proclaimed my D&D campaign my favorite art form. So I disagree here- but this is absolutely a subjective thing, so think of this as a difference in perspective rather than an argument or assertion.

The way I see it, rpgs are a creative medium. Thus, your game can be art, as can mine, but the rules themselves are not a work of art any more than a film school textbook. They provide a framework for individual DMs and players to do what they do.

I don't know- I'd argue that even a game that tries to set its rules as a world-describing set of fantasy physics, which is what I thought 3e did (and did pretty well), implies a playstyle.

I don't think it does. Those laws can then be used to support any number of actions. Even if damage and hit points were a perfect model of health and injury (cue laugh track), they are descriptive. A DM that wants characters to be tougher than people can simply give them more hit points or adjust damage downward. A DM that wants to force an outcome can change or ignore the numbers. The same logic applies to any set of rpg rules.

Rules as physics is as neutral as it gets. They're not neutral with regards to the social contract, but that's not part of the game itself anyway.

The problem is, of course, that the world implied by the game rule physics is always different from the world we understand, and thus is not so neutral.