D&D 5E Design Philosophy of 5e

[I'm A Banana]

But, when the spirit of the rule is obvious, and the rule is open to interpretation, why must a detailed reading be necessary, or even desired by some?

The spirit of the rule isn't always as obvious as all that. Especially to those without the level of expertise and fanwankery that we have here. In our non-short-rest-related example of Fireball being a worse spell than Magic Missile, maybe that was the intent? Maybe they WANTED MM to be the best spell to use for six levels? Maybe that's what D&D is about? Maybe Fireball is secretly more powerful in some way that's not obvious? Maybe the DM should be using more fire-vulnerable monsters to make it balanced?

The DM shouldn't have to be constantly playing Mind Reader on the designers via their words, trying to determine what a rule was "really" meant to convey vs. what it actually does as written. A good DM can be a good mind reader, of course, but that goes back to my point about how a good DM will fix every problem.

 

[Agamon]

Yeah, frankly, I do not understand the offense taken to this in the slightest. I do not honestly believe for a second that this style of dungeon grinding, with rests in between every fight, is anyone's idea of fun. I just don't. It's not badwrongfun; someone would have to actively ENJOY it to be badwrongfun. It really is just boring. People just like being offended, especially at the slightest provocation of a game dev. MMO or RPG, all gaming forums trend alike in this respect.

I'll admit, I wouldn't have even noticed the comment without people here mentioning it, because I thought it was common sense.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Thank you all for the good discussion so far.

Now, after all is said and done, it would be awesome if they did some summary analysis of the playtest feedback, because I think it would be extremely effective in helping us understand where they are coming from.

[MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] has mentioned he might do a public post-mortem of the 5e design and playtest process some day. I hope he does. It would be fascinating.

Not that I really blame Mearls, it was just a bit of off-the-cuffery in the moment. I'm reasonably confident that's not the tone he was intending, and I don't want to read too much into this offhand little statement.

I'm quoting this part for you to remind us all you said this as well as the "badwrongfun" part.

But it's not a shining moment, because it basically implies that there's ways to play that the design team basically regards as low-quality, dull experiences. And if your goal is to make a big tent and cast a wide net, that's not an implication you wanna give out a lot of.

I agree they shouldn't, for instance, make fun of people who want 5 minute short rests. Neither should they ridicule people who want 8 hour short rests. Those are different play styles people genuinely like for various reasons.

However, if the designers think a style of play is boring and they have that supposition backed up by player feedback, I'm okay with them calling it boring. It helps if I agree, certainly. But I like tracking spell components, and they think that's boring, too. That's fine. It probably is.

Second, we have rules that don't work as intended in the way they are written. If Magic Missile was more powerful than Fireball, but we insulted people who decided to pick just cast Magic Missile ("Oh, that's just such a BORING spell"), that doesn't suddenly make the issue one of playstyle differences.

I agree with your distinction. I disagree with your point that Mearls was referencing rules (I almost brought up which rules) that don't work as intended. My take from what he said was, /shrug "working as intended". If people want to play that way they may, we aren't going to stop them. That seems different from saying, "magic missile is awesome when we didn't want it to be? Oh well."

That good DMing can't be counted on everywhere all the time and in every instance, so I don't think we should accept "it's not a problem for a good group!" when looking at rules issues, because that's always true. No rule is ever a problem for a good group. It doesn't make it a good rule.

Again, I agree. I just interpret him as saying "this is only a problem for a boring group (not a bad group) and even then it's not a problem because they like to play in a way I find boring". (Not an actual quote, just me making stuff up).

I will grant this is a weird analogy, but it illustrates what I want in a ruleset:

Good analogy. I, too, want a picket fence.

There's a disconnect I'm seeing between the way people actually play games, and the way people analyze rules, and those two things often have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

I agree. I think this is why Mearls, in his latest L&L article, mentioned annual surveys to see if things were actually problems in actual play. That seems huge. Instead of seeing bag-o-rats as a problem discussed on boards and then implementing changes, they are going to ask people, "hey, is bag-o-rats a problem at your table". Then they'll only fix things when people respond in the affirmative.

I would characterize the design philosophy differently.

Empirical vs. Theoretical.

Agreed, see above.

I've also been reflecting that the approach to rules for the last couple of editions was more rules-as-science (RaS), and for 5e and earlier editions it was more rules-as-art (RaA). The former is less hospitable to inexact language. The latter sometimes prefers inexact language, as it lets individual tables have individual experiences.

They have designed the opposite of a CPRG.

I think this was their only real path to survival.

Some experience for Thaumaturge for starting a good thread! Wait. What? Ooops.

I came in at a time unique to most of you probably. I am 35 and I just started playing halfway through Murder in Baldur's Gate when the September playtest packet came out.

Wow. Welcome to the hobby.

With regards to SWW (sorry!),

As for your experience points Thaumaturge, we all must aspire to exceed our original hopes and dreams and press on. You will be level 10 soon...

I've noticed my players changed from "whatever man" players in old editions to "these are the exact rules and we must follow them exactly" when we made the switch to 3rd and Pathfinder. I believe this has to do with the prose in the book. Old editions were written in a "DM is the boss, do this if you like" prose while new editions clamped down the exact rules and strangled the authority of the DM.

I went through this exact change. And now I'm back. I hope to stay this time. More precise language seems to breed an expectation of exactness.

Thaumaturge.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In these examples, though, the bad rules are bad even when used as intended.

I don't understand how? If the intent is to emphasize gender differences and to model different kinds of armor, then they are not necessarily bad rules for that. If the intent is to have elegant combat and gender equality, then they are bad rules for that, but since I am not a mind reader, I can't really tell what the "Intent of the Founders" is here, all I can go by is what he actually wrote down.

Unlimited short rests are bad if they are used outside of their proper place and the DM doesn't have a good handle on pacing. BUT... they aren't going to implement a rule stopping that because some people will do just that, even if it is a dull narrative, just for the sake of maximizing power every fight. This is the inclusive approach.

"Proper place." And then here:

I'll admit, I wouldn't have even noticed the comment without people here mentioning it, because I thought it was common sense.

"common sense."

What seems to be missing here is the fact that things like "proper place" and "common sense" are not empirical facts or objective truths. They are, at best, things that you've LEARNED work well for a great table experience for the people you've played around. That's being a good DM. That is compensating for the flaws in the rules. That's not a playstyle difference. That's what Obryn mentioned as "fixing" the game.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The spirit of the rule isn't always as obvious as all that. Especially to those without the level of expertise and fanwankery that we have here. In our non-short-rest-related example of Fireball being a worse spell than Magic Missile, maybe that was the intent? Maybe they WANTED MM to be the best spell to use for six levels? Maybe that's what D&D is about? Maybe Fireball is secretly more powerful in some way that's not obvious? Maybe the DM should be using more fire-vulnerable monsters to make it balanced?

This is why I said communication is the absolute most important thing. I'm not saying that any perceived problems shouldn't be brought up. They should. Then the WotC people can comment on the problems, and a discussion about their intentions can lead to answers. If they find that their intentions are not reflected well in the rules, then they can alter them.

However, this bypasses my main point. Which is that if a player wants a certain playstyle, bypassing a perfectly good interpretation to play with one that is not preferable to them makes little to no sense. But, that happens all the time! Conversations can go something like this:

Player 1: "I hate this rule. I interpret it as X. I wish it were Z."
Player 2: "I always interpreted it as Z. Here's why."
Player 3: "I agree with Player 2. That's how I see it. Seems to be in the spirit of the rules, too."
Player 1: "That's not what it says! I'll continue to play it as X. That rule really sucks."

At least, that's the vibe I get, that people who could be perfectly happy with an alternate, plausible, interpretation would rather go with a very literal reading of the rules. Or they insist on declaring something a house rule and complaining about it like house rules are bad in some way. Even when other people play the same way and don't consider it a house rule.

It's a touchy subject to be sure. But, this is an RPG and not a boardgame. I see fundamental difference between the two. It is possible that others don't, however.

 

[keterys]

Infinite short rests is just a subset of the problem of infinite extended rests.

As noted above, at least in an MMO you get a worse fun to time ratio if you rest constantly.
In D&D, it's actually _faster_ if you handwave rests and just fill up to full every encounter. It warps the game in (what I think is) a horrible fashion, but it's just not the same.

I'd much prefer the system to require either a very extended amount of time (ex: a month in the wild, week in a town kinda thing) _or_ a level _or_ approval from the DM (ex: You guys defeated the Necromancer, but are only halfway to level), which folks could then tinker with to suit their style of play further.

It would say a lot more about whether a wizard with 3 Sleep spells was expected to cast one per combat for three combats then go to sleep, or not, for example.

 

[Agamon]

"common sense."

I'm saying, to me, it sounded normal, and that's why I never noticed it. Never said it was fact or truth. Common sense is not so common.

Doesn't seem to matter how often I makes sure my statements are subjective and state they only the opinion of myself, someone tries to get their nose out of joint over it because internets.

 

[Halivar]

but since I am not a mind reader, I can't really tell what the "Intent of the Founders" is here, all I can go by is what he actually wrote down.

Except in this case they specifically said that it was not their intention for players to use short rests this way. We CAN tell. Consider it a "sidebar" that you may ignore at your leisure (as they also specifically say you may if you wish, even if that ain't their cuppa).

What seems to be missing here is the fact that things like "proper place" and "common sense" are not empirical facts or objective truths.

If the designer of the game can't dictate the "objective truth" of a rule's proper in-game implementation, then why is anyone listening to him to begin with? Why does anyone want him to clarify these things? Decide what's common sense for your group, and do it. Nothing in the rules prevents that. That's why there AREN'T rules for this minutiae.

That's being a good DM. That is compensating for the flaws in the rules. That's not a playstyle difference. That's what Obryn mentioned as "fixing" the game.

Aside from the fact that the very DNA of this edition is "rulings, not rules", I stridently disagree that you'd be "fixing" anything. Implementing RAI instead of RAW isn't "fixing" anything, or filling any holes; it's playing the game it was meant to be played (again, devs have not been silent on this). 3.x and 4E turned us all into lawyers and I look forward to the day RAW carries little weight again.

 

[Shaangor]

Aside from the fact that the very DNA of this edition is "rulings, not rules", I stridently disagree that you'd be "fixing" anything. Implementing RAI instead of RAW isn't "fixing" anything, or filling any holes; it's playing the game it was meant to be played (again, devs have not been silent on this). 3.x and 4E turned us all into lawyers and I look forward to the day RAW carries little weight again.

For my group this isn't the case. As I mentioned in my earlier post, for my group we prefer to have explicit well-understood rules instead of slightly-less-so, open-to-interpretation rules. The reason isn't because of RAW rules lawyering (nobody in my group is the rules lawyer type). My players just prefer knowing exactly what the potential of their abilities are instead of generally knowing and potentially having unknown effect. The fluff of the ability can be molded around the rules, but it's difficult to go the other way.

 

[Halivar]

My players just prefer knowing exactly what the potential of their abilities are instead of generally knowing and potentially having unknown effect.

That's good, but some questions should be decided by the narrative (i.e. you the DM).

"Can I take multiple short rests?" is a question that should have different answers depending on whether there is a bugbear listening in the next room or not. The rules can't tell you that; YOU decide.