D&D 5E Is 5e's Success Actually Bad for Other Games?

[Umbran]

Oddly enough, any object with any impact also takes some effort to lift.

One of the most valuable, but most basic inventions humans have ever come up with is... the lever. The thing that allows you to lift much more, with less effort.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of the most valuable, but most basic inventions humans have ever come up with is... the lever. The thing that allows you to lift much more, with less effort.

But it doesn't do it by having you lift less; it just does it by letting you do the same more efficiently.

I'd argue the equivalent of that is options that are mechanically present but built to a more common metric so that they're easier to remember. But that doesn't allow you to do exception based design, and that's been a standard of D&D and its kin since 1974.

 

[Parmandur]

Flexibility is a virtue. Its not the only virtue. Nor is simplicity.

No, but they are great virtues, indeed.

 

[Parmandur]

Honestly, I don't think it makes any difference; without a halfway detailed framework to at least let the player know where he can expect to be able to do something or not, its still wrestling with jello. At the very minimum there needs to be a halfway extensive set of benchmarking numbers, and I suspect that's going to violate some people's desire to never look anything up.

5E does have such a framework, that's the whole point of Bounded Accuracy. In practice, it is extremely effective.

 

[Parmandur]

But it doesn't do it by having you lift less; it just does it by letting you do the same more efficiently.

I'd argue the equivalent of that is options that are mechanically present but built to a more common metric so that they're easier to remember. But that doesn't allow you to do exception based design, and that's been a standard of D&D and its kin since 1974.

The elegance and straightforwardness of the 5E action resolution system seems like exactly such a lever.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The elegance and straightforwardness of the 5E action resolution system seems like exactly such a lever.

I'm glad it does for you. It doesn't to me.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm glad it does for you. It doesn't to me.

Can you give particular examples of what is not doable with a flexible system in your experience?

 

[loverdrive]

There's no correct answer to "what does a player want out of a scene?", except their answer. Whatever it is.

If one option is actively contributing to the game by setting up an interesting scene and inviting more risk, and the other is the opposite of contributing to the game as it reduces the amount of exciting naughty word that can happen on screen and leaving the game master as the only person who actually does something... Well, there is a correct answer.

 

[billd91]

If one option is actively contributing to the game by setting up an interesting scene and inviting more risk, and the other is the opposite of contributing to the game as it reduces the amount of exciting naughty word that can happen on screen and leaving the game master as the only person who actually does something... Well, there is a correct answer.

But if it‘s just a question of shooting the guy running or fist-fighting it out, as in your example, that just kicks that point one step down the road. At some point, the action scene needs to be resolved. Might as well do it with the gun as anything else, then the story can move on no matter who contributes the next impetus.

 

[Campbell]

Part of the reason why I am happy to play, but will not run 5e anymore is that it lacks the flexibility to run the game in the way I generally like to run games. It makes me responsible for things I don't want to be responsible for. I have to manage the pacing of the adventuring day. I have to make decisions that impact the course of the narrative instead of focusing on the situation. I have to engage in spotlight balancing because characters are so narrowly focused. I do not ever really get to sit back as an audience member wondering how things will turn out. I don't get to frame a scene where the players' characters are in a tough spot and simply focus on providing honest adversity.

This flexibility argument relies on the conceit that GMs have the foresight of a mentaat, considering every possible in mere seconds and the discipline of a buddhist monk. Human cognition does not work like that though. Our imagination and cognition in any given moment is finite. We need to direct our mental energies if we are going to be effective. We have to act with intention if we are going to reliably do anything.

In my experience there are a pretty common set of principles most 5e GMs rely on though. Any GM worth their salt is going to run a game in a principled way and the DMG actually points towards a very consistent playstyle that is not far off what we see from Matt Colville and the Critical Role crew with some side eye glances towards traditional sandboxes.