I still think you're attributing to incompetence what should be attributed to choice.i don't know how much game design work you have done, but it is not arbitrary and for sure when you are talking about the D&D team it isn't "lazy." It might not be to your liking (there are quite a few choices I'm not fond of) but suggesting it comes from a lack of skill or intention is a bad look.
No, I fully believe they
are competent but purposefully chose a design philosophy which, as it happens, requires less work and feels incomplete to me. I am not saying, for what
was done, it is necessarily
bad (some is to me but that is the over simplicity issue--and completely subjective of course!), simply that I wish they had gone further. As I already said, I do not expect (or want) a game with rules for literally
everything but 5E feels lacking to me.
And with everything I have posted here, I have done A LOT of game design work. Sure, for me it is a hobby and not a
job, but that doesn't mean I haven't put in the hours designing, developing, and playtesting.
Out of curiosity, why aren't you playing something like 3.5 or Pathfinder? Those would probably be the crunchiest options within the D20 family. Is there something you don't like about them, or is it just that 5E is currently the biggest game in town?
Great question!
The answer is pretty simple but involves a few elements:
1. The group I started with a few years ago wanted to play 5E as that was all they were exposed to.
2. I only own 5E material (well, very little 3.5 and no Pathfinder) besides AD&D stuff.
3. I played 3E/3.5E back in 2007 and it has very nice rules, but too much "extra" stuff* for my tastes.
4. I (briefly) looked at Pathfinder and found it also suffered from the "extra" stuff.
What do I mean by "extra" stuff? Well, it is the overabundance of features for PCs, et al., that what I want. 5E also suffers from this issue. I know goes against the modern trend--"more is more" instead of the old "less is more" which I personally enjoy.
The best game system for me would involve concrete, well-thought-out and complete rule systems for what you want to do instead of focusing on all the stuff you "get to do" (i.e. features).
As an aside, I recently had a conversation with a couple older players from the AD&D 1E/2E days (before all the guides and splat of 2E) and asked them: "Did all the fighters you played back then feel the same?" Universally the answer was "no". So I asked why not? After all, all you did was attack, attack, attack, and so on. The answer was basically because the core class features were unvaried, the variance came in form of other aspects of the fighter: STR vs. DEX, melee vs. ranged, sword/shield vs. 2-weapon, race, particular weapon choice, focus of desire magical items, and most importantly--role-playing choices!
In an odd way, I feel almost like AD&D was really more "open" than 5E is, because 5E gives you choices and most players feel like those features define their character. I am probably not explaining it well, but I don't really know how else to say it.
For me, the issue is: is a haiku 'lazy' because I prefer an hundred page epic poem? Minimalist paintings? Those '5 ingredient' recipe books? Setting out to do something with a confined scope doesn't equate to lazy. Mind you, 'the <creators> intended it to be that way' is not a dodge of critique, and said minimalist thing can be (subjectively) genuinely bad, but that's a different beast than lazy.
I see your point but we will simply disagree on this. There is a certain elegance to confined design, but when DMs are fairly flat-out told: just do it however you want, don't ask us for the rules-- it seems lazy to me.
As I've said, a
bit farther, a
bit more rules and guidance and suggestions on
how to extrapolate your own rulings, probably would have solved the design flaw for me.
I think you'd probably hate it when I make chocolate chip cookies then.
Much like I prefer a soft cookie, I prefer D&D with a lot of leeway. Besides, a lot of crunch is just artificial fluff, does it matter what the DC for climbing a wall based on material if the DM just decides the material of the wall anyway?
LOL probably then!
Even a more "complete" 5E would have tons of leeway. My point is they could have
made the rules more thorough and people could always ignore them or change them as desired (if desired!). Without them, DMs (especially novice DMs) are left more in the dark which makes creating fair and consistent rulings harder.
I feel like most of it, if taken
one step farther, would have been much more acceptable for me. But, they didn't take that step... and so the game feels incomplete to me when it comes to rules.
Finally, I'll reiterate, I am not saying that is
bad design (for most), but is
bad design for ME. Obviously, due to a plethora of reasons, 5E is incredibly popular and successful, but as I wrote in the other thread--without some major design changes, I won't be investing much more in D&D. That's fine with me, for what it is worth, I've had decades of enjoyment from the game and if I can find the players willing to return to prior editions or stick with my 5E mod, I'll keep playing--just not spending.
