D&D 5E Does/Should D&D Have the Player's Game Experience as a goal?

[Lanefan]

Do you need such permission, Lanefan? Do you think most folks who are similarly experienced need such permission?

No, but I'm older and wasn't raised in today's environment.

And as you already said upthread, this advice wouldn't be for experienced DMs anyway. It'd be aimed squarely at the inexperienced or first-time DM, ideally something along the lines of:

Step 1: here's the rules; read them, play some trial games, get a feel for it
Step 2: modify the game system to make it your own. Yes, that's right - go ahead and make changes to the rules!

The following few pages would outline a few (of many) possible ways to go about this, what are your goals and intentions in making changes, talk about knock-on effects, etc...............

 

[Imaro]

It's funny this thread has me thinking about the videogame, No Man's Sky. No Man's Sky doesn't have a particular way to play it. There's a story and you could choose to follow it... or not since it's not the greatest story ever. You get a spaceship and can upgrade it, buy new ones, smuggle, have dogfights in space but it's not the best spaceship flight/shooter. You can build bases and deck them out... but it's not the best building game. You can ride around, fight, and explore in Mechs but there are better Mech videogames. You cna carry weapons and shoot things, but it's not the best shooter. You can explore and survive on planets but it's not the best survival/exploration game... But it sold 10 million copies, and has a strong and engaged community. I think it's appeal is that it allows you to do all of these things with friends or individually with minimal guidance and rails. It gives you the tools and gets out of the way letting you decide how you're going to interact with the game.

Edit: I doubt the game would be as successful or as fun if suddenly the Devs decided NMS is focused on hardcore survival or is now a spaceship flight/shooter game and re-designed it to do only that.

2nd Edit: I really think the worry about new players not being able to grasp the game is greatly overstated there's a multitude of resources for anyone who wants to get into D&D.

 

[Oofta]

I agree that it's not narrowly focused. Never argued that it wasn't. Heck, I don't think anyone is arguing that it's "narrowly" focused, although, I think it's perhaps not as broad as you are claiming. The fact that you have to add all sorts of house rules in order to achieve certain play, means that it's not as broadly focused as you are claiming.

I mean, trying to do naval campaigns is a white whale in D&D for me. I've been trying for editions to make it work. But, D&D doesn't handle what I call platoon sized encounters- say 30 combatants to a side - very well at all. It's far too fiddly and granular. See the issues with summoning in 5e (and earlier editions) to see how much of a PITA adding 10-20 combatants to an encounter is.

I never said it could do everything. Mass combat has always been lacking, they've never come up with a mass combat system that works particularly well. Which is odd in a way since it grew out of a wargame. If I do mass combat the PCs are a special task force, potentially fighting mobs of lower level enemies.

But, again, transparency is a different issue. There's so little in D&D that is actually explained and it really should be. Why do we have bounded accuracy? What happens if you change bounded accuracy? And what little discussion about that that there is is almost entirely DM facing. There's very little telling the players, "Hey, if you go out of your way to futz with bounded accuracy with your character, you are going to make the game less fun for everyone at the table. Please don't do that."

First, pretty much everybody including the people that will be writing the 2024 edition knows the DMG needs improvement. But the issue I have with "transparency" is that it's a vague word in this context. Is it explanations of the rules and mechanics? Because I don't remember them every doing that very much. Not really sure how much they can do that in a way people would actually find useful. I'd always fall back on the advice from the DMG of being sure to do a lot of play testing and be ready to adjust as needed. There are all sorts of potential pitfalls when you start messing with core systems, not sure how much advice they can give.

 

[Oofta]

...
2nd Edit: I really think the worry about new players not being able to grasp the game is greatly overstated there's a multitude of resources for anyone who wants to get into D&D.

If we could figure out how to play TSR versions of D&D, I'm sure kids can pick up this version as well. The proof is in the pudding so to speak on that as well. Millions of people started playing with 5E.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, but I'm older and wasn't raised in today's environment.

And as you already said upthread, this advice wouldn't be for experienced DMs anyway. It'd be aimed squarely at the inexperienced or first-time DM, ideally something along the lines of:

Step 1: here's the rules; read them, play some trial games, get a feel for it
Step 2: modify the game system to make it your own. Yes, that's right - go ahead and make changes to the rules!

The following few pages would outline a few (of many) possible ways to go about this, what are your goals and intentions in making changes, talk about knock-on effects, etc...............

Don’t you think that my suggestion of supporting more than one way of playing would necessarily allow for more than one way of playing? To use different rules if you desire a shift toward X style of play?

I think it’s far more important for beginning GMs and players to have solid guidance than to be told they can ditch the rules and do it all themselves. That they learn how to play according to the rules and establish a foundational understanding.

I think the current rulebooks are really muddled in this regard.

It's funny this thread has me thinking about the videogame, No Man's Sky. No Man's Sky doesn't have a particular way to play it. There's a story and you could choose to follow it... or not since it's not the greatest story ever. You get a spaceship and can upgrade it, buy new ones, smuggle, have dogfights in space but it's not the best spaceship flight/shooter. You can build bases and deck them out... but it's not the best building game. You can ride around, fight, and explore in Mechs but there are better Mech videogames. You cna carry weapons and shoot things, but it's not the best shooter. You can explore and survive on planets but it's not the best survival/exploration game... But it sold 10 million copies, and has a strong and engaged community. I think it's appeal is that it allows you to do all of these things with friends or individually with minimal guidance and rails. It gives you the tools and gets out of the way letting you decide how you're going to interact with the game.

It’s not really that great an example because the game has actual rules that allow all those different approaches to play. That’s the intent of its design… and if that’s a design goal… if you want to allow multiple play experiences, you have to provide complete rules and guidance to help deliver that experience.

If it didn’t have mech rules, then you wouldn’t be talking about how you can pilot a mech in the game. And so on.

Now, RPGs are different and don’t need the amount of design that a videogame might in order to include a given play experience… but I don’t think what’s provided is anywhere near as robust as many often claim.

Edit: I doubt the game would be as successful or as fun if suddenly the Devs decided NMS is focused on hardcore survival or is now a spaceship flight/shooter game and re-designed it to do only that.

Good thing no one’s suggesting such a thing for D&D.

2nd Edit: I really think the worry about new players not being able to grasp the game is greatly overstated there's a multitude of resources for anyone who wants to get into D&D.

Yeah… why learn a game from the rulebooks?

Again… this is just accepting the transfer of responsibility to another party. And while I think some of this is okay given the nature of RPGs… I don’t think the fundamentals should be among them.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If we could figure out how to play TSR versions of D&D, I'm sure kids can pick up this version as well. The proof is in the pudding so to speak on that as well. Millions of people started playing with 5E.

From what I’ve seen and heard… and this is true of myself as well as many posting here… we didn’t truly learn AD&D. We learned parts of it rather than a whole. Basic D&D was easier to learn and more concise… but it was also more narrowly focused.

And those of us who did learn AD&D, it often took a lot of time and trial and error. I think that’s led to an expectation by long time players and GMs that this is simply the process. That it takes years to truly learn the game and that the core text be very enigmatic and at times contradictory, and having to rely on outside sources to learn.

It’s an odd expectation. Especially when it comes to talking about delivering the desired experience for players. Like if I could have gone back to my childhood and somehow changed the ease with which I actually absorbed AD&D… of course I’d do so. Who wouldn’t?

 

[Hussar]

First, pretty much everybody including the people that will be writing the 2024 edition knows the DMG needs improvement. But the issue I have with "transparency" is that it's a vague word in this context. Is it explanations of the rules and mechanics? Because I don't remember them every doing that very much. Not really sure how much they can do that in a way people would actually find useful. I'd always fall back on the advice from the DMG of being sure to do a lot of play testing and be ready to adjust as needed. There are all sorts of potential pitfalls when you start messing with core systems, not sure how much advice they can give.

Really? There's all sorts of potential pitfalls? But, I just got told that 5e is so friendly to kit bashing. That it was an incredibly easy system to modify and make your own. So, which is it?

That's where transparency comes in. That earlier editions weren't particularly transparent isn't a surprise. No one would argue that 1e was a transparent system after all. Yikes. So many of the design decisions there are so baroque that no one really knew why things where the way they were, and often players and DM's would simply rewrite large swaths of the game simply because the way the game was written is so opaque.

But, if you write your game and make it transparent - Designer sidebars, explanations within various rules showing why and how this or that thing came about. THAT'S what transparency means. It's not vague in the slightest. Why are the various suggested DC's what they are in the DMG? What happens when you start changing those DC's? Why are given spells at a given level? 3e had a listing in the DMG that talked about the suggested damage per level of the spell based on the caster - cleric vs wizard, that sort of thing. So on and so forth.

Of course it won't happen. If they show how the sausage was made, the fandom would lose their collective poop. So, the DMG remains vague and unclear.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There's so little in D&D that is actually explained and it really should be. Why do we have bounded accuracy? What happens if you change bounded accuracy? And what little discussion about that that there is is almost entirely DM facing. There's very little telling the players, "Hey, if you go out of your way to futz with bounded accuracy with your character, you are going to make the game less fun for everyone at the table. Please don't do that."

Yeah, this is honestly about the most DM-friendly thing they could do: Treat the home DM as a fellow designer, rather than as a passive customer.

 

[Imaro]

It’s not really that great an example because the game has actual rules that allow all those different approaches to play. That’s the intent of its design… and if that’s a design goal… if you want to allow multiple play experiences, you have to provide complete rules and guidance to help deliver that experience.

If it didn’t have mech rules, then you wouldn’t be talking about how you can pilot a mech in the game. And so on.

Now, RPGs are different and don’t need the amount of design that a videogame might in order to include a given play experience… but I don’t think what’s provided is anywhere near as robust as many often claim.

It was a perfect example for my point... Again it has rules but they aren't the best for any of those things... The claim is always you can do X with D&D but why when its not the best at X. Or is your claim now D&D (including 3pp) doesn't have any rules? Specific rules?? I'm actually confused by the claim you're making here.

Good thing no one’s suggesting such a thing for D&D.

If you are dictating what the game us about... how are you not?

Yeah… why learn a game from the rulebooks?

Why indeed when you can learn through numerous resources that show real worl application and examples??

Again… this is just accepting the transfer of responsibility to another party. And while I think some of this is okay given the nature of RPGs… I don’t think the fundamentals should be among them.

Eh maybe for you but for the younger audience they are targeting... I think the leveraging of videos, real examples, social media, quick takes and so on is key to not only sttracting them but teaching them the game..

 

[Oofta]

Really? There's all sorts of potential pitfalls? But, I just got told that 5e is so friendly to kit bashing. That it was an incredibly easy system to modify and make your own. So, which is it?

That's where transparency comes in. That earlier editions weren't particularly transparent isn't a surprise. No one would argue that 1e was a transparent system after all. Yikes. So many of the design decisions there are so baroque that no one really knew why things where the way they were, and often players and DM's would simply rewrite large swaths of the game simply because the way the game was written is so opaque.

But, if you write your game and make it transparent - Designer sidebars, explanations within various rules showing why and how this or that thing came about. THAT'S what transparency means. It's not vague in the slightest. Why are the various suggested DC's what they are in the DMG? What happens when you start changing those DC's? Why are given spells at a given level? 3e had a listing in the DMG that talked about the suggested damage per level of the spell based on the caster - cleric vs wizard, that sort of thing. So on and so forth.

Of course it won't happen. If they show how the sausage was made, the fandom would lose their collective poop. So, the DMG remains vague and unclear.

You have a definition for transparency and want something D&D has never done. Are there any games that do this?

In any case it seems like you're just looking for an argument. I don't disagree that sidebars would be nice, but how much info is enough is an open question. We'll see what they do with the 2024 edition.