D&D 5E Should 5e reflect the designers' point of view?

[Obryn]

It's actually a shot in the dark really, but you still have to be careful because some people have particular tastes that a large base may not like.

I think 4th edition was a bit narrow minded in it's audience and I could see the mechanics as being a niche designer's personal liking.

Dungeons and Dragons is not an RPG that designers can just go nuts with and create a game they know they would like. There are certain expectations that come with the game. If you want your own personal design then I would recommend doing a new game over on kickstarter and see where it goes.

D&D: Relentlessly pursuing mediocrity since 1974.

New tagline: "Well, at least Next isn't your last choice!"

 

[Raith5]

D&D: Relentlessly pursuing mediocrity since 1974.

New tagline: "Well, at least Next isn't your last choice!"

I think all RPGs need to be informed by the designers but D&D has such narrow expectations for its design, it hard to see where there is any incentive for innovation or new ideas.

The thing I liked about 4th ed was that it had a strong high fantasy feel and they tried new things - like horror of horrors, originally making wizard make an attack roll with magic missile. I still think the static defenses of 4th ed is more elegant than a mix of AC and saves. But I can certainly see how some of the 4th ed things rub against tradition.

The thing I like about DDN is the idea of modularity and making a gaming system more adaptable to various gaming styles and preferences. I am interested to see how this actually works in 5th edition.

 

[Uchawi]

The way to neutralize some of the developers own preference or bias is creating a vision for the game and trying to stick with it. I am not sure anyone wants a game that is developed by survey or a committee without someone taking a leadership role. I am curious if WOTC has data on how many players stick with an edition, versus those that want to move on and try new things. That would state a lot about moving forwards or backwards in reference to the history of D&D. I am a move forward type person.

 

[Tovec]

I think you raise an interesting point [MENTION=91777]Dungeoneer[/MENTION] but give it a slant I don't really agree with.

You say "I would rather they make an interesting game that tries new things then a bland by-the-committee game that just tries to please everybody. Because you know who will ultimately play the latter game? Nobody."

Except it isn't really like that. That isn't the scale that is to be judged. So, I disagree with that.

What I think is that the designers clearly have to create a game they enjoy, but for smaller companies it is vital to make one they personally will play almost to the exclusion of all others because they aren't going to be selling enough copies to make others happy anyway. However, larger companies DO have to take the concerns of their customers into account. It is vital.

I guess what I'm saying is that the "bland" option will be one that is counter to the game that made D&D the RPG leader. They've already recognized this and have done what they can to recapture the classic feel as much as possible. All designers have to work for their own goals to make sure they are happy and to produce what they want. Being happy with the end result isn't one of their stated goals. No doubt it will factor in, but it isn't the game they were looking to create (by itself). Instead they were looking for a game that captures that earlier feel in a new form. They've succeeded to some extent but in many ways those who know the older feel best are more important than making themselves happy. So, counter to other RPG's goals, they should seek to make as many people happy as possible. To get that committee together to get to a game that everyone can be happy with.

13age is different, they sought to make a game that was 4e 2.0 and from accounts they seem to have succeeded. If they were trying to make a 5th edition with design goals similar to what WotC has put forward then they majorly failed. Happy or not, they wouldn't have succeeded at 5e. Happy or not their game would be bland to those who didn't enjoy 4e.

In fact I would wager that WotC has gotten a fairly good feel for the classic era fairly well. I'm seeing plenty of AD&D 3e comments floating around. The part that worries me is that they haven't gotten enough D&D 3e era feel and same goes for 4e feel. If it had been up to me I probably would have done the 5e the way they are but also continued with 4e. The games and styles feel so incompatible that I don't see how they could ever merge those outlooks. And for 3e? Well I think that we would have either (i) found nice common ground once the 4e era concerns were out, or (ii) been excluded in this model to play more PF (or other retroclones) as it seems has kind of ended up anyway.

But yeah, for question? Reflect their POV, preferences, or whatever? Only so much as that is their intention. If you are going to try my RPG then know I am making it to please me. Not even to please my friends, just me. With that said, I have no staff, no budget, no design goals except to make myself happy. If I had staff, budget, goal of "uniting the fanbase" or even any kind of actual expertise in this to do it professionally? Then I suspect I would have to design by committee to please as many as possible. That is the problem with being on top, you have to stay there.

 

[pemerton]

Where 3.x was the Swiss Army Knife of games, 4e was a scalpel.

I tend to feel the versatility of 3E is somewhat overrated. I certainly think it reflected a pretty strong design vision.

 

[The Human Target]

I mean, 4e was designed to be a game that addressed tons of concerns of the fans in 3e and add popular stuff into the core.

People act like it was printed with babies blood.

Maybe some of you guys do want a game based on the designers point of view, just old school designers.

 

[Ichneumon]

I mean, 4e was designed to be a game that addressed tons of concerns of the fans in 3e and add popular stuff into the core.

People act like it was printed with babies blood.

Maybe some of you guys do want a game based on the designers point of view, just old school designers.

Damn, I've got about three kids' worth on my shelf...

 

[The Human Target]

Damn, I've got about three kids' worth on my shelf...

Me too.

But seriously, that's what 4e was.

People complained about class balance/spellcaster dominance= 4e fixed it.

People like to play dark heroes, devil folk, and dragon related guys= They added warlocks, tieflings, and dragonborn into the core.

Gnomes aren't really that popular, so they took em out at first but left a playable version in the MM.

People liked warforge, so they got merged into the base game.

People complained about epic being an add on in 3e, they baked it into the core of 4e.

People complained about iterative attacks, they ditched em.

And on, and on, and on.

Just because a game tries to please its fans doesn't mean every fan will like the result.

 

[Raith5]

Me too.

But seriously, that's what 4e was.

People complained about class balance/spellcaster dominance= 4e fixed it.

People like to play dark heroes, devil folk, and dragon related guys= They added warlocks, tieflings, and dragonborn into the core.

Gnomes aren't really that popular, so they took em out at first but left a playable version in the MM.

People liked warforge, so they got merged into the base game.

People complained about epic being an add on in 3e, they baked it into the core of 4e.

People complained about iterative attacks, they ditched em.

And on, and on, and on.

Just because a game tries to please its fans doesn't mean every fan will like the result.

In some ways 4th ed was more like a hand grenade than a scalpel. Personally I think it was the jolt that D&D needed.

4th ed solved my core problems with 3rd ed. Especially with relation to the relative dominance of caters over martial types, the problem of the 5 minute workday and broadening the sweet spot of levels where the game actually worked.

I really liked 3rd ed levels 1-7 or 8, then for me, it went off the rails with caster dominance and kind off sucked the fun out of the game for me as a DM. But 4th ed worked well the whole way through - I think epic works well in 4th. Granted the starting point of 4th ed it a touch too heroic for my tastes but it still works. Sure there is a bloat of feats and powers - but 4th ed is not alone in this regard.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Quite frankly, the game has to only cater to my playstyle, or I won't buy it.

I know, right?

This is of course the classic dilemma for game designers.

Partially rcylcing an answer from an earlier post:

Going with the designer's viewpoint is fine if creating a brand new game or product without an existing audience. In that situation it is better to make a consistent game that follows their personal design philosophy.
It's doesn't work for a product with an existing fanbase, as it puts the views or a very, very small number of people (the 2-10 designers) ahead of the audience.

If the designers want to create a game that's their baby, their vision of a game, they should form their own game company and kickstarter their dream like Numenera and 13th Age. That's a fine and valid option; not everyone can work on an existing property or conform their design to an established paradigm.
If they want to design for an existing franchise they need to follow the conventions of that franchise and respect the audience and the game's history. As the fans have their own ideas of what the product should be like, and they'll reject a product that does not conform to their idea what their game will be.

Really, this goes for other creative endeavors such as movies or video games or books. You don't go into a James Bond movie and try and make it entirely your own, to treat it like a personal vanity project. You can't write Spider-man like an independent comic. There are both pros and cons to working with a Brand, such as Dungeons & Dragons.

So the designers made the choice when they signed up to work on the brand rather than an independant personal work. They're sacrificing some individuality to work with a more recognisable brand, to build on what has come before rather than create anew, to have the chance to leave a lesser mark on something historic rather than build something new from scratch.

Wait! You just said the designers have to 'build on' what came before. So they're ADDING something new? Who decides what gets added? Isn't the 'something new' going to have to be the designer's vision?

The owners of the brand can do what they want with the brand, but that does not mean it will be accepted. MGM owns James Bond, the movie character, and can do what they want with the franchise. If the studio wants to recast Bond as a blond thug then they're within their rights to. Or a quick talking Liverpudlian con man. Or a streetwise teenaged black woman. Or an effete homosexual Korean man. It'd still be James Bond because that's what the movies says. But that does not automatically mean he'll be Bond to the generations of fans. And the farther the character drifts what what is seen as Bond, the better the movie has to be to win over those fans.

I disagree with you quite a bit, Jester. And I think your example disproves your own point. Studios have started 'rebooting' major franchises by handing them to filmmakers with very strong points of view who change them up quite a bit. We've had three Daniel Craig Bond movies now, so maybe we've forgotten how controversial he was to start with. "A blond Bond?!? Perish the thought!" Craig took Bond in a whole new direction, without entirely throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Or look at J.J. Abrams Trek reboot. Or the Dark Knight trilogy.

The fact is, when you want to reinvigorate something stale, you don't slavishly hew to tradition. You strike out in a new direction! It doesn't always work, but when it does people really love it.

Let me ask YOU a question. If the designers need to 'stick to the script' on D&D, as it were, without contributing their own personal vision, why bother making a new edition at all? If we aren't going to allow them to innovate or take risks, new editions become pointless. I suppose WotC could instead release endless incremental updates. 3.75 and 4.5. I'm sure that would make some people very happy!

I think you raise an interesting point @Dungeoneer but give it a slant I don't really agree with.

I guess what I'm saying is that the "bland" option will be one that is counter to the game that made D&D the RPG leader. They've already recognized this and have done what they can to recapture the classic feel as much as possible. All designers have to work for their own goals to make sure they are happy and to produce what they want. Being happy with the end result isn't one of their stated goals. No doubt it will factor in, but it isn't the game they were looking to create (by itself). Instead they were looking for a game that captures that earlier feel in a new form. They've succeeded to some extent but in many ways those who know the older feel best are more important than making themselves happy. So, counter to other RPG's goals, they should seek to make as many people happy as possible. To get that committee together to get to a game that everyone can be happy with.

When was the last time a committee managed to make everyone happy? Committees specialize in the sort of grumbling compromise that is barely acceptable to most people. That hardly counts as 'happy'.

13age is different, they sought to make a game that was 4e 2.0 and from accounts they seem to have succeeded. If they were trying to make a 5th edition with design goals similar to what WotC has put forward then they majorly failed. Happy or not, they wouldn't have succeeded at 5e. Happy or not their game would be bland to those who didn't enjoy 4e.

I don't think this word 'bland' means what you think it means.

Food I dislike is not 'bland'. It's icky!

I tend to feel the versatility of 3E is somewhat overrated. I certainly think it reflected a pretty strong design vision.

Yeah, if you read further down in my OP you'll find I completely agree with you.

I mean, 4e was designed to be a game that addressed tons of concerns of the fans in 3e and add popular stuff into the core.

People act like it was printed with babies blood.

Maybe some of you guys do want a game based on the designers point of view, just old school designers.

There's no doubt that 4e built on 3.x and addressed many of its issues, but it also added a lot of things that weren't really related to 3.x. Class roles come to mind. Skill challenges. The tactical combat system, generally.

In some ways 4th ed was more like a hand grenade than a scalpel. Personally I think it was the jolt that D&D needed.

I agree. I think D&D, like anything old and popular, needs these kind of kicks in the pants to keep it fresh. 4e may not have been everyone's cup of tea but it introduced some badly needed new ideas into the D&D conversation. I'm guessing 3.x was the last D&D where wizards can run out of spells and fighters can only hit things with a stick. I think it leaves behind an important legacy for future designers and players. Hopefully 5e does that as well.