D&D 5E How viable is 5E to play at high levels?

[Helldritch]

Thank you for sharing your experience.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If it were science, it would be provable (that's the whole point behind scientific method) and we'd have consensus. Art rarely has consensus because it relies on a matter of taste and preference.

So tell me, on all those things listed, how many have consensus on how good/effective design they are? How many come down to taste and preference?


There you go.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Alright, I'm going to start small and precise (due to both time constraints and to clarify/focus conversation) and we can work our way up/out from there.

I think everyone can easily distinguish the "art" component of design and GMing:

- A piece of artwork or a brief narrative is meant to compel/inspire the GM to engage the PCs with the conflict that the picture/commentary captures.

- A player makes an action declaration and the GM decides whether that is genre-off or genre-on and freaking cool (therefore permissible)!

- Maintaining the game's momentum requires the GM to abstract some mostly irrelevant play time that would bog things down.

- Tailoring your campaign to the PCs created.

Stuff like that.

I would agree with all of that.

What about this stuff in 5e? For each, qualify it as "more art" or "more science". Then how about "why?"

Here's my take on each of these:

* Bounded Accuracy- this is the math of the game, so I think it is more science than art.

* Scaling a setting map (specifically for a hexcrawl)- do you mean the scale of a map in the traditional cartographical sense? That would be a bit more science than art, if we were talking about real places and needed to make sure that scales were accurate. However, given that the maps we're talking about are almost always for fictional places, I think that this falls into art. I don't think we can say that Mike Schley's work is of a scientific nature.

* The Proficiency System- I'd say science given that this is part of the math of the system, and that it's uniform across classes and how it's applied.

* Adventuring Day-based design rather than Encounter-based design - I think this is one that will vary a lot from person to person. For me, this is almost entirely art; I design my encounters and locations and so on by judgment, with little to no regard for XP budgets and the like. There is no target number I want to achieve, or anything like that. For others, this may be more of a science because they adhear to XP budgets or similar formulae, but even then, I'd still say there is a lot of art involved (i.e. you can get the numbers to work with wholly unfitting monsters/NPCs for the story).

* Stocking a dungeon- Art, for the same reasons as the Adventuring Day above.

* Deciding a DC- I'll give science the edge on this if I had to pick one because this again relies heavily on the math of the game, but really there's such a variance in teh judgment calls from one DM to the next that it's kind of hard to consider it science. Science is exact. Words like "Hard" or "Easy" are all very subjective. But I'll throw science a bone on this one.

* Evaluating CR and then using the Encounter Budget rules- I should kind of abstain from commenting since I don't do this ever....but at the same time, I don't see much distintion between this and the "Stocking a Dungeon" or "Adventure Day design" mentioned above. I suppose this is the scientific expression of those things, so I would say this is more science based....but like I said, I don't use it at all.

* Deploying the Social Interaction (DMG 244-246) conflict resolution mechanics, including playing the NPC coherently with integrity- Art. This is like acting, which is pretty universally considered an art.

Honestly, I think it's even more Art than Science after seeing your list than I would have considered before. I think there are some scientific tools that the DM can use to work his art....perhaps that's the best way to summarize it for me.

 

[Imaro]

I think there are some scientific tools that the DM can use to work his art....perhaps that's the best way to summarize it for me.

This pretty much nails my opinion on 5e as a whole in the art vs. science debate...

 

[Helldritch]

I'd say that Hawkeyefan pretty much summerized this whole thread in just these sentences.
Kudo on that one.

 

[76512390ag12]

I would like to suggest that the question isn't Science vs Art.
It's Craft versus Art.
None of the elements of D&D are scientific in the sense of dispassionate enquiry using the scientific method.

There are elements that use maths or algorithms to try and build semi balanced models of combat that will lead to interesting and probably not overly easy/lethal combat simulations. That is Craft and that is much about judgement and experience as it is about numbers and mathematics.

I feel Craft is a much better term to use, in that we all understand that you get better at Craft, it's a learnt process supported by some algorithms and a lot of experience and wisdom.

Then what you make from that, how you transform the words and the numbers and the random dice rolls and the collective experience into a rewarding experience, now that's Art!

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would like to suggest that the question isn't Science vs Art.
It's Craft versus Art.

Someone asserts DMing is "more Art than Science." That's an idiom with a well-known meaning. Why quibble with it's use of the word 'science.'

Alright, I'm going to start small and precise (due to both time constraints and to clarify/focus conversation) and we can work our way up/out from there.

I think everyone can easily distinguish the "art" component of design and GMing:

- A piece of artwork or a brief narrative is meant to compel/inspire the GM to engage the PCs with the conflict that the picture/commentary captures.

Kinda on the nose.

- A player makes an action declaration and the GM decides whether that is genre-off or genre-on and freaking cool (therefore permissible)!

- Maintaining the game's momentum requires the GM to abstract some mostly irrelevant play time that would bog things down.

- Tailoring your campaign to the PCs created.

Stuff like that.

Yes. Art.

What about this stuff in 5e? For each, qualify it as "more art" or "more science". Then how about "why?"

* Bounded Accuracy

Game design, 'science,' not the DM's problem.

* Scaling a setting map (specifically for a hexcrawl)

Largely irrelevant.

* The Proficiency System

Game design, intimately linked to BA, science, not the DM's problem.

* Adventuring Day-based design rather than Encounter-based design

Design thereof, pseudo-science at best/politics at worst it presents fundamentally imbalanced things as if they were meant to be balanced, when they're barely-theoretically balanceable;
making it work at the table DM's Art is put to the test.

* Stocking a dungeon

DM's Art. It paints a picture of the world: of the adversaries in that part of it, or the history of the place being explored, etc.

* Deciding a DC

DM's Art. You're saying something not just about the task but about the character and the flow of the story. Heck, deciding to call for a roll rather than narrate success/failure is part of the DM's Art. So, even though there's a bit of math/'science' if you want to get into chance of success, you've used a lot more Art just getting to that point.

* Evaluating CR and then using the Encounter Budget rules

A "Dismal" 'science,' at best. The action economy barely scratches the surface of the imponderable variables that go into this, with classes imbalanced to begin with, and day-length shifting those imbalances as well as the difficulty of the combat - generally a wasted effort. DM should trust his Artistic instincts & hard-won experience, instead.

* Deploying the Social Interaction (DMG 244-246) conflict resolution mechanics, including playing the NPC coherently with integrity

haven't ever glanced at them. So I'd just deploy the DM's Art, instead. ;P

 

[Manbearcat]

Just a couple of things right quick:

1 - I have a mild Hurricane Irma issue so if I can't get a response up in the next few days, it will be a few days more beyond that, possibly.

2 - "Art vs Science" isn't mine. It's been standard usage for some time. If you don't like "science" then sub:

Application of Bayesian Inference + Forensics + actual Statistics (design/iteration phase) + the deployment of simple 2 box models (typically performed as a subroutine of rote thought/conception/extrapolation).

Let's just talk about stuff and not drown in semantics (even though I'm very, very tempted to argue about the definition of science, I have neither the time nor the inclination.

I'll follow up with my own analysis of the stuff I wrote above as soon as I'm able.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have a mild Hurricane Irma issue so if I can't get a response up in the next few days, it will be a few days more beyond that, possibly.

Good luck.

 

[Helldritch]

I wish you good luck with your hurricane.