D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Mercurius]

What makes you so sure that the ideas are "good" with "functional justification"?

...

Because, quite a lot of the time, the rules as written just get in the way rather then enabling a fun experience.

Because millions of people have fun playing it.

There are many systems that I feel are "better" from a mechanical standpoint, or at least more to my liking. For instance, Ars magica's magic system or the intuitive simplicity and wide applicability of the Savage Worlds system.

But D&D is fun in its own right. It works for what it seeks to do. It is anachronistic in many ways, but that's part of the fun.

I would suggest that if you don't enjoy the experience, you play a different game. Or modify it so that you enjoy it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because millions of people have fun playing it.

There are many systems that I feel are "better" from a mechanical standpoint, or at least more to my liking. For instance, Ars magica's magic system or the intuitive simplicity and wide applicability of the Savage Worlds system.

But D&D is fun in its own right. It works for what it seeks to do. It is anachronistic in many ways, but that's part of the fun.

I would suggest that if you don't enjoy the experience, you play a different game. Or modify it so that you enjoy it.

Right, but none of that gets to the argument being put forth.

Just because lots of people like the end result doesn't mean that every idea and tradition in DnD is still good, or still maintains its "functional justification"

 

[Mercurius]

Right, but none of that gets to the argument being put forth.

Just because lots of people like the end result doesn't mean that every idea and tradition in DnD is still good, or still maintains its "functional justification"

Are we talking about something else, or the mechanical concerns that GreenTengu brought up? I was specifically referring to those only in my response.

D&D has millions of players who are, by and large, happy with the mechanics as is.

 

[Oofta]

I would agree that tradition is not a good reason to keep something if it's the only reason.

On the same hand, we shouldn't remove something simply because a minority complain about it. I'm not sure we'd have much of a game if we removed everything that someone somewhere had an issue with.

On the other hand many things are the product of their time, didn't understand

Right, but none of that gets to the argument being put forth.

Just because lots of people like the end result doesn't mean that every idea and tradition in DnD is still good, or still maintains its "functional justification"

If "tradition" is the only reason I agree . On the other hand, if something is broke don't fix it. If something is kind of broken repair it. We had thousands (tens of thousands?) of hours of playtests for 5E. One of the most extensive playtests for a game ever.

For the most part, it works. There are minor things I'd change but considering that it's the best selling TTRPG ever made I think they did a pretty good job. No game can be or ever will be perfect. Then again, there's another saying that seems appropriate.

Don't let perfection get in the way of good. D&D 5E isn't perfect, but it is good. At least for millions of people.

 

[Hussar]

I would agree that tradition is not a good reason to keep something if it's the only reason.

On the same hand, we shouldn't remove something simply because a minority complain about it. I'm not sure we'd have much of a game if we removed everything that someone somewhere had an issue with.

On the other hand many things are the product of their time, didn't understand


If "tradition" is the only reason I agree . On the other hand, if something is broke don't fix it. If something is kind of broken repair it. We had thousands (tens of thousands?) of hours of playtests for 5E. One of the most extensive playtests for a game ever.

For the most part, it works. There are minor things I'd change but considering that it's the best selling TTRPG ever made I think they did a pretty good job. No game can be or ever will be perfect. Then again, there's another saying that seems appropriate.

Don't let perfection get in the way of good. D&D 5E isn't perfect, but it is good. At least for millions of people.

So, the obvious question is, how large does a minority have to be before we change something? Yes, I know that's a question with no real answer. The answer is obviously, more than 1 and less than ... well... somewhere more than one.

But, again, why are you presuming minorities here? You say we'd lose most of the game if we removed everything that someone, somewhere had a problem with. But, look at the current issues. The orcs thing (sorry, I know that's a bit of a dead horse) has been an issue for a LONG time. This had been something of a perennial issue that kept coming back, year after year. Same with alignment. Or chainmail bikinis. It's not like these issues have suddenly sprung forth from the head of Zeus. These have been around for quite a while.

The only difference is, now the voices are loud enough that the majority no longer feel comfortable ignoring them. And, frankly, the "majority" is changing pretty rapidly too. Ten years ago, there was what, maybe 10% of gamers were women? Now it's pushing 50%? That's going to radically change what is a "minority" voice.

At the end of the day, it's an unanswerable question. How much of a problem does something need to be before it gets changed? I don't know and no one else does either. But, I do know that simply painting the issue as "oh, it's just some loud minority of squeaky wheels" doesn't really work either.

 

[Umbran]

Somehow people have learned to have fun with a really crappy game? Somehow it started a whole new hobby and inspired decades of fiction. Amazing for such a crappy poorly thought out game!

Thoroughly aside and unpopular opinion: AD&D was actually pretty poorly thought out, by today's understanding of RPG design, yeah.

But, here's the real point: "Are the ideas of D&D tradition"good" with "functional justification?" As a whole, absolutely yes."

It is very, very easy to elide from "as a whole" to "each and every part", but that's not a well-founded step. Even in a thing that is good as a whole, there can be many bits that aren't good. So, "as a whole" is not really an adequate defense of any particular bit that may be under discussion. And, since "tradition" is built upon this, "as a whole," idea... tradition is not a good defense of any particular bit of design.

And, of course, nothing new, and no improvement, ever comes out of following tradition.

 

[Hussar]

Heck, just from a mechanical perspective, how many mechanics have actually survived unchanged since 1e? I'm actually struggling to think of any.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't think anyone is arguing that D&D shouldn't continue to change. Sure, there are always "edition holdouts," but most people are happy to move on to a new set of moderately altered rules every decade or so.

I can speak for myself: I have embraced every new edition change, from when 2E came out to today. I will most likely embrace 6E, whenever that comes out. I am not opposed to change, as a general rule. I'd even be open to something radically different, mechanically speaking.

But I also don't see the point of something too radical. The game works, warts and all. It is fun to play. Sure, fine-tune it, bring in new ideas with optional rules and the cycles of editions. But there is something rather iconic about the core components of the system that, even if they aren't as cleverly designed as other games, make you know you're playing D&D. Levels, Ability scores, Hit Points, Armor Class, some kind of Saving Throws, Vancian magic. That's about it.

As I said above, I much prefer Ars Magica's magic system, and I could go through the list of D&D sub-systems and find games that, I think, do them better. But I'm also happy to play D&D, as it is, in whatever D&D. It is sort of like your home town: it probably isn't the best town in the world, but is...home.

We should also consider the popular of the game right now. Realistically speaking, WotC is unlikely to depart from the basic chassis of 5E...unless the popularity complete tanks. Most people are fine with the rules as they are, and among those who aren't, most of them just change it to their liking.

 

[Hussar]

But I also don't see the point of something too radical.

Well, now isn't that the million dollar question. What's a "radical" change? I mean, if you jump from 1e to 5e, those are not the same game. At all. Virtually nothing of 1e survived the editions other than maybe proper nouns. Mechanically? 5e shares far more DNA with games like Rolemaster than AD&D. It eventually becomes the old saw about the axe. If you've replaced every bit of the axe with new bits that are not the same as the old bits, is it even the same axe anymore?

 

[Mercurius]

Well, now isn't that the million dollar question. What's a "radical" change? I mean, if you jump from 1e to 5e, those are not the same game. At all. Virtually nothing of 1e survived the editions other than maybe proper nouns. Mechanically? 5e shares far more DNA with games like Rolemaster than AD&D. It eventually becomes the old saw about the axe. If you've replaced every bit of the axe with new bits that are not the same as the old bits, is it even the same axe anymore?

I don't see the point of something too radical from what 5E actually is right now. Do you? 5E, to some degree at least, represents over 45 years of development. Should the wheel be re-invented? Or should the designers build on what came before?