D&D 5E Just One More Thing: The Power of "No" in Design (aka, My Fun, Your Fun, and BadWrongFun)

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Charlaquin]

hmm... I feel that a Race is easier to implement than a Subclass. It's a small handful rules that don't change much as the character grow and Lore is basically the biggest obstacle, something that doesn't REALLY need playtesting in the same way crunch do, just a bit of brainstorming. But I think that ease is also a curse because then it becomes tempting to just bloat the game.

I think as long as consumers don't feel overwhelmed by additions to the game, we've not breached any sort of dangerous frontier in terms of additions and the PHB+1 rule is a good basis to avoid the insanity that could arise in 3e (plus, it excuses reprints).

I totally get your point about simplicity of design, but there is another force at play here: stagnation. I think the game needs to strike a balance between simplicity and avoiding the game become stale. If you only like 50% of the PHB subclasses and 30% of the Xanathar one, you risk running out of character concepts that interest you and be bored with the game.

And this is why the idea that there will never be a 6e is laughable.

 

[Oofta]

I get that people want more. I have my own wishlist. But it's probably different from most people's wish lists because I enjoy running campaigns that get up to high levels and support for a lot of aspects is lacking. But I do have options. At some point when my current campaign gets to that point if the players want to pursue nation building I'll rummage through the UA articles on mass combat and pick up Colville's book on strongholds. Does it really matter that it was not published by WOTC?

I also sympathize a little bit with people that want more build options, it's just that in my experience with previous editions is that more is never enough. They'll always want more. Get tired of the same 5 builds that people use because those 5 builds are "optimal" on a spreadsheet*? Guess what? Add a dozen more classes and subclasses and 5 "optimal" builds will float to the top. I see as even less of an issue than previous editions, most of the "optimal" builds only add a handful of points more damage at levels people never play anyway.

Given that there is no wrong way to play the game, I play more for the RP and using the rules to express a PC. I could probably have fun playing the same core classes from the PHB for a long, long time without ever "duplicating" a PC significantly. Then again, I ran a fighter/rogue who's best stat was strength which may not have optimal but fit my image.

I actually think creativity can be kind of stunted if there are pre-planned options for you to take. It's kind of like lego sets. Way back in the dark ages, legos were just plastic bricks and the only "instructions" you had was to build something. Now? You can get lego sets to build specific things, whether that's a jeep or a star destroyer. Still cool in their own way but also limiting imagination. Much like most computer games, as much as they try to give the illusion of control in the end you're going to get the red, green or blue ending. Add another dozen classes? Most people will still play the same basic archetypes.

tldr: I agree, a more focused game is generally better. I like having limits to options because it challenges me to be creative within the existing framework.

*Which, in 5E usually means an additional half dozen points of damage per round at level 12 while ignoring everything but DPR.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think that there are valid points and perspectives that people can have, and, for example, that we just saw in the last two posts ( @Lanefan and @Undrave ).

The good things about 5e is that, for the most part, it has managed to thread the needle of appealing to as many people as possible.

One of the problems of appealing to wide base of people is that you can't be the "best in class" at most things- it can't be the most intensive CharOp, or the most Complex, or the most beginner friendly. But so long as it threads that needle of appealing enough to most people to keep up a large player base and benefit from scale (being the default RPG) that won't matter.

I don't think it's that simple. There's also a need to think of how things will play out over time. When I first started playing 5e I didn't think much about how various changes from 3.5/pf would play out over time & just took the simplified streamline as "hmm ok cool". After a year or two of GM'ing it became apparent how not only do many of those streamlined changes play out in problematic ways as the game advances & that because there was so many systems simplified just as much that just doing some quick homebrew changes has to get overly complicated to avoid further conflict or just washed into irrelevance. Take slow natural healing/healing kit dependency & the fact that everything else still recovers overnight making it still a choice between "hmm... forced march type penalties or dump some spell slotsLoH for healing & be perfectly ready to nova everything in the morning... tough choice" the gritty realism 8hr short/7day long rest has its own boatload of problems. Too much of a good thing is something that should be considered when fixing problems of the past.

For a different take on it, many car buyers will say that affordability & fuel efficiency are bar none the most important factors when buying a car, but a car manufacturer should know better than to prioritize those so far that they put out a zero star lemon like this even if there are markets like india where it is a popular car.

Just like a car buyer, as a player I'm not thinking too hard about how things will play out & break down over time in use... but the car manufacturer & game designers should absolutely be devoting thought to that during the design & testing phases.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Players feel they have to use those options because they know full well that if they don't, someone else at the table probably will; increasing that PC's odds of surviving (winning) at expense of your own. It's almost like an arms race, where the only way to truly curtail it is to not produce the arms (options) in the first place.

Depending on the nature of that option, whether it's a race or class or spell or feat, it may seem obligatory as the only way to role-play a competent character. I mean, you can't choose how you're born, but only a fool would bring a knife to a sword fight. If healing spirit is really that good, then I'd be an idiot to intentionally avoid it.

 

[jayoungr]

I do get tired of the same character after a while. I did 3 levels or so as a Druid and I felt I had seen enough. I snuck around as a Spider, I got info from animals, I unleashed a pack of 8 wolves on unsuspecting villains, I used Plant Growth to stop a caravan of slavers, etc. I had done the 'Cool Things' the character had to offer that got me interested in it in the first place and I was ready to try something else.

That sounds really sad to me.

 

[NotAYakk]

You would think that if there was one place .... ONE PLACE .... where a person could still type up 128 sentences, with an F-K reading level of 8th grade, it would be on enworld, you know, a site dedicated to RPGs that involve books, and math, and words and stuff.

It wasn't the reading level. It was the writing! You'd fail any 8th grade writing assignment like that.

I'm just saying, when writing a wall of text, start with saying what the hell you are talking about in summary. Then talk about it.

Look at paragraph 1. Why the hell is that paragraph 1? Why do we need motivation for what you are going to write before we know what you are writing about?

Then, still not saying what "it" is, you start talking about a video skit from a comedy show.

Next, you start blathering on about another meta topic. GET TO THE POINT MAN. Another paragraph of, honestly, noise. Then another paragraph of not WHINING about other people on the internet -- is that the point of your post? MAYBE! WHO KNOWS!

6 god damn paragraphs into a rant AND YOU HAVEN'T SAID WHAT YOU ARE RANTING ABOUT. I mean, if the prose was good, we could be on to something -- there are people who can pull that off. I mean, there are columnists who write about nothing backwards and forward.

At this point I assume you might actually get to a point, but who knows! Maybe your next paragraph will rant on about another tangential topic that has naughty word-all to do with the point. Shall we check?

Nope. 7th paragraph is

And as the number of posts in any given thread about adding something officially to 5e increases, with arguments within it, there will inevitably be a post with language similar to the following (I will use quote to set it off, but I am not quoting any particular post):

More naughty word around with whining about meta people who may or may not exist outside of your head, because you are going to quote a strawman! Great. 8th paragraph is the quote.

OMG! At paragraph 9 you get to the point... maybe?

Please note I am simplifying and making the argument generic, but we've all seen the variations on it. Essentially, if you don't like something in 5e, you don't have to use it, therefore any thing you don't like, you need to be silent about since it can be added without affecting you.

No, still some kind of strawman argument. No position taken yet.

So, what do you think?

So, you asked what I thought. That is what I think.

When trying to make a point, start with the rule of 3.

First say what you are going to say; what point you are trying to make.
Then say it. Make your point.
Then say what you said. Say why this justified your point.

In each part, recuse if you need more detail. Repeat the middle part a few times as well if needed.

Don't rant on for 9 paragraphs about the sins of generic other people in generic other threads when talking about this topic without describing the topic clearly, or even saying what position you are taking.

 

[Prakriti]

In this thread, we grade lowkey's post with respect to spelling, grammar, and organization.

 

[Lanefan]

In this thread, we grade lowkey's post with respect to spelling, grammar, and organization of ideas.

Besides, what's wrong with a good old-fashioned incoherent rant now and then?

 

[generic]

Don't rant on for 9 paragraphs about the sins of generic other people in generic other threads when talking about this topic without describing the topic clearly, or even saying what position you are taking.

In academic writing, we don't use Arabic numerals or conjunctions. Also, the bold text is unnecessary in this context. I would like to see some sources cited, other than the single one you included.

Really, @NotAYakk, I am disappointed. One would think your post would have formatting which exceeds eighth-grade level.