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

[Imaro]

But it's not a good example because No Man's Sky doesn't say "Want to use Mechs? Program it yourself!"

The rules for many things for D&D are anemic to nonexistent. Want to fight monsters? TONS of rules to support that experience. Want to be a sailor? A lot less there. Want to shift the danger level? Here's a few suggestions, but we're not gonna really elaborate on why they'll help or what else you can do and (most importantly) why.

Very often the game avoids committing to mechanics in favor of punting that to DMs. They expect DMs to become game designers. But they don't generally offer much in actual and specific advice for game design.

I don't know how better to explain this to you... The Mech design, usage and combat in NMS is anemic compared to say Armored Core that's the comparison I am making. The thing is in Armored Core I can't jump in a spaceship and fly to another planet or participate in a dogfight. NMS doesn't commit to any of these things they leave it up to you as a player to find your fun in the game world, much of that fun isn't about depth in one particular thing but in the breadth of things, regardless of how fleshed out they are, that you can experience in the game.

I didn't do that. I suggested what I think it should do. But I also said that there are multiple paths. A game can focus on a specific player experience and then design toward that. Or it can design for multiple player experiences. I think there should be games of both types. I don't think either is "wrong" or that D&D must be one over the other. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that there's a best way.

However, whichever way they go, I think they need to actually support that choice. If their desire is to deliver a game that can support a vast array of player experiences, then I think they need to actually support that decision with the game's design. I don't think that 5e does a great job of that at all. There's some minor advice and some examples of different mechanics that can be bolted onto play... but I don't think a lot of consideration has been given to those mechanics.

Yes but your argument seems to be implying, if not explicitly stating that if D&D goes the array of player experiences route it must provide rules with the same depth as a bespoke experience game for all of them which is an unrealistic expectation and honestly not what I think most players want. See NMS succeeds because it doesn't force you to delve to deeply into any one experience in order to enjoy it.

I think such advice runs the gamut. You can find almost any opinion about D&D online. It's not deadly enough... it's too deadly. And so on.

I think that the books should instruct players how to play the game. Which also means how to run a game as a DM. I don't think that's a crazy assumption to make. The fact that it's even being questioned is a bit odd.

I'm all for supplemental material online. How-to videos and the like. All that would be great. But the books should, in my opinion, provide the foundation for all of it.

And I've yet to hear a compelling argument otherwise. It seems to amount to appeasing players and DMs who have decades of experience, who should already be familiar enough with all this stuff to be perfectly comfortable with it.

And I think it's an antiquated way of looking at how the game should be taught (by reading 2-3 300+ page books) . If anything WotC should be leveraging DnDBeyond along with video tutorials, social media and starter sets to teach the fundamentals and from there you move into the core books. Especially with the rising cost of print materials... it just seems silly to think the core books are the best way to get the fundamentals to new players.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't know how better to explain this to you... The Mech design, usage and combat in NMS is anemic compared to say Armored Core that's the comparison I am making. The thing is in Armored Core I can't jump in a spaceship and fly to another planet or participate in a dogfight. NMS doesn't commit to any of these things they leave it up to you as a player to find your fun in the game world, much of that fun isn't about depth in one particular thing but in the breadth of things, regardless of how fleshed out they are, that you can experience in the game.

I understand your point. I don’t think that “it doesn’t do anything the best, but does a lot of things okay” is a ringing endorsement for a game.

My point is that no matter how minimal the mechanics for some element may be, they should be present. D&D does indeed have some elements backed by minimal mechanics that allow for a given play experience. But for other elements, they are entirely absent.

Yes but your argument seems to be implying, if not explicitly stating that if D&D goes the array of player experiences route it must provide rules with the same depth as a bespoke experience game for all of them which is an unrealistic expectation and honestly not what I think most players want. See NMS succeeds because it doesn't force you to delve to deeply into any one experience in order to enjoy it.

No, I’m not implying that. I’m saying that they need to be significant enough to deliver the desired experience.

And I think it's an antiquated way of looking at how the game should be taught (by reading 2-3 300+ page books) . If anything WotC should be leveraging DnDBeyond along with video tutorials, social media and starter sets to teach the fundamentals and from there you move into the core books. Especially with the rising cost of print materials... it just seems silly to think the core books are the best way to get the fundamentals to new players.

I’m not against any of those things. I mean, we can say books are antiquated, and I’ll understand the idea, even if I don’t really agree. But if they’re still gonna make the books, then those should help participants learn the game. The idea they shouldn’t is just baffling.

More than teaching the game though, I’m talking about supporting the players and GMs in making the game their own. If they’re going to toss design off to players and DMs, then give them actual advice on design.

Again… we’re talking about a game delivering a specific experience. I think if the game doesn’t give you everything you need for that experience, then it should provide proper guidance on how to create it yourself.

Opinions of course will vary about whether or not D&D does that, and I’m not going to try and change your mind one way or the other. But opinions aside, I don’t think what I’m saying is really that controversial.

 

[Imaro]

I understand your point. I don’t think that “it doesn’t do anything the best, but does a lot of things okay” is a ringing endorsement for a game.

I didn't say that simply because "best" is subjective to the particular player. For someone who wants to jujmp right in and figure it out a multitude of detailed rules isn't going to necessarily be better than a quick and dirty system. That said... NMS sold 10 million copies and continues to have an engaged community and player base, so...

My point is that no matter how minimal the mechanics for some element may be, they should be present. D&D does indeed have some elements backed by minimal mechanics that allow for a given play experience. But for other elements, they are entirely absent.

Like what? And yes, I am including 3pp for 5e. What can you not find rules for?

No, I’m not implying that. I’m saying that they need to be significant enough to deliver the desired experience.

So who decides if they do or don't deliver said experience for any particular person? Or stepping away from D&D does CoC, When The Moon Hangs Low or Kult's approach to horror deliver the better horrific experience... well guess what, that's going to depend on your subjective preferences for horror... right?

I’m not against any of those things. I mean, we can say books are antiquated, and I’ll understand the idea, even if I don’t really agree. But if they’re still gonna make the books, then those should help participants learn the game. The idea they shouldn’t is just baffling.

More than teaching the game though, I’m talking about supporting the players and GMs in making the game their own. If they’re going to toss design off to players and DMs, then give them actual advice on design.

Again… we’re talking about a game delivering a specific experience. I think if the game doesn’t give you everything you need for that experience, then it should provide proper guidance on how to create it yourself.

Opinions of course will vary about whether or not D&D does that, and I’m not going to try and change your mind one way or the other. But opinions aside, I don’t think what I’m saying is really that controversial.

What design does D&D toss off to the players? 5e can be played perfectly fine without modifying anything. There are optional rules in the DMG and WotC's supplements as well as a multitude of 3pp creating material outside of WotC's bulwark (some of which are even starting to appear in DDBeyond) so what exactly is not being provided?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I didn't say that simply because "best" is subjective to the particular player. For someone who wants to jujmp right in and figure it out a multitude of detailed rules isn't going to necessarily be better than a quick and dirty system. That said... NMS sold 10 million copies and continues to have an engaged community and player base, so...

Sure! I've played it and my opinion is it stinks. But sure... popularity equals quality, I suppose.

Like what? And yes, I am including 3pp for 5e. What can you not find rules for?

Well, I wasn't really talking about 3rd party elements precisely because I don't think sufficient guidance was provided to outside parties. Some folks have indeed been able to figure things out and put out decent products. But most 3rd party stuff is amateurish at best, and absolute garbage at worst.

So who decides if they do or don't deliver said experience for any particular person? Or stepping away from D&D does CoC, When The Moon Hangs Low or Kult's approach to horror deliver the better horrific experience... well guess what, that's going to depend on your subjective preferences for horror... right?

Yes, of course.

What design does D&D toss off to the players? 5e can be played perfectly fine without modifying anything. There are optional rules in the DMG and WotC's supplements as well as a multitude of 3pp creating material outside of WotC's bulwark (some of which are even starting to appear in DDBeyond) so what exactly is not being provided?

I'm not attacking 5e, so you really don't need to defend it. Our opinions on how well it provides for different play experiences differ... you're not going to change my mind, and I'm not trying to change yours.

My point is... do you think a game should provide either specific mechanics to deliver the desired play experience, OR, if multiple play experiences are supposed to be supported, that they provide mechanics for those, or absent those mechanics, sufficient guidance for players/GMs to deliver those experiences?

 

[Oofta]

Sure! I've played it and my opinion is it stinks. But sure... popularity equals quality, I suppose.

Ah, the old "It's popular and a lot of people play it but I don't personally like it so I'm going to imply it's crap!"

....
My point is... do you think a game should provide either specific mechanics to deliver the desired play experience, OR, if multiple play experiences are supposed to be supported, that they provide mechanics for those, or absent those mechanics, sufficient guidance for players/GMs to deliver those experiences?

So I've noticed you still haven't ever answered @Imaro's question - what specifically do you think D&D should cover that it doesn't?

No game can cover absolutely everything unless it's purely a toolset for building games. So no, I don't think D&D needs to give explicit instructions for all possible scenarios. When it comes to areas that aren't covered, there is a chapter in the DMG Dungeon Master's Workshop. It could be improved, like everything else in the DMG, but it is there. I've never experienced these huge gaps others see, not when I DM or play. If you need something that's not provided it's likely quite a niche, which is one of the reasons why 3PP is well supported.

For example D&D has never had a good mass combat system because it's focused on a small team of PCs. I don't think it's really a flaw that they don't have it when there simply isn't a good way of melding the two. If you want mass combat, use a different system. D&D is flexible but it is not infinitely flexible. It covers a broader set of scenarios and themes than many games but it can't cover every scenario. If it doesn't do something you expect, I don't think it's the book's fault.

There's a Perkins down the street from me. It serves a wide variety of food, But you can't get a taco there. They serve a wider variety of foods, at about the same quality you'll get at that price point, at a lot of restaurants. Is it the best restaurant for a steak? Not for me, I wouldn't bother. But when I've been on the road I actually like to get the roast beef sometimes because I can get a side of veggies, something sorely missing in a lot of menus. Heck you can even get a burger with a bowl of soup, which is nice because I don't care for fries very often.

I don't complain about Perkins not having burritos any more than I think it's an issue that D&D doesn't have mass combat rules or only gives general guidelines for how to handle things that are outside of the box. I don't think anybody is particularly confused about what D&D is, if they are there are plenty of actual play streams out there to watch which is better than including it in a book that you have to buy to figure out it's not the game for you.

 

[Clint_L]

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...............

I have not found that my youngest get players have any problems with kit bashing D&D, once they start their own campaigns. In fact, it's usually the first thing they do. One group immediately decided to adapt it to a modern setting for their campaign, for example. So the spirit of Rule 0 is alive and well, IMO.

 

[Lanefan]

Very often the game avoids committing to mechanics in favor of punting that to DMs. They expect DMs to become game designers.

Exactly - and if they'd simply say this up front after giving us a toolbox to work with, all would be good. Gygax almost did this with 1e but just couldn't commit to it, instead vacillating wildly back and forth between "make the game your own" and "changes are verboten!" even within the same book.

But they don't generally offer much in actual and specific advice for game design.

Indeed; nor is much given by way of options (though at least there's a few), nor of "here's some suggestions and examples of how to make changes and of what the effects of those changes might be".

However, whichever way they go, I think they need to actually support that choice. If their desire is to deliver a game that can support a vast array of player experiences, then I think they need to actually support that decision with the game's design. I don't think that 5e does a great job of that at all. There's some minor advice and some examples of different mechanics that can be bolted onto play... but I don't think a lot of consideration has been given to those mechanics.

Agreed.

 

[Lanefan]

What design does D&D toss off to the players? 5e can be played perfectly fine without modifying anything.

Only if what you're looking for is more or less the experience 5e sets out to deliver: heroic play, mostly combat-centered yet relatively low-risk, low to very low in-character frustration, limited interaction with the setting outside the adventures, and a bit meta.

Thus, the design that's been tossed off to the players (or more accurately, the DMs) is all the kitbashing required (noted in italics) in order to achieve any of:

--- non-heroic and-or low-powered play [major top-to-bottom overhaul]
--- most downtime activities: stronghold building, training, magic item economy [port these in from other systems/editions]
--- exploration for its own sake at any sort of granular level [remove a few spells, add explore rules, change overall focus and pacing]
--- resource management being important [remove a few spells, change player expectations]
--- no meta-currencies [remove inspiration, halfling luck, and anything else that can alter a die roll after the fact]
--- higher and-or more random lethality/risk [reduce everyone's hit points, change death mechanics, port in risks from other editions]
--- greater in-character difficulty [no rerolls on skill checks, fail always means fail, 'nothing happens' is a viable and expected outcome]

Then there's the design/kitbashing required to overcome and fix baked-in elements that some (many?) see as problems:

--- making stealth/hiding/perception work in a realistic manner [probably needs its own bespoke subsystem]
--- more randomness and unpredictability in combat [non-cyclical initiative, fumbles, fog of war rules]
--- casting being too easy/reliable/accurate [major rework of casting mechanics]

That's a lot of design work you're asking a DM to do to even achieve 1/3 of these things. And yet IMO D&D, while still providing the experience it does now, should at the same time be equally able to provide these different experiences without the DM having to become an amateur game designer.

There are optional rules in the DMG and WotC's supplements as well as a multitude of 3pp creating material outside of WotC's bulwark (some of which are even starting to appear in DDBeyond) so what exactly is not being provided?

If it's not in the initial core books it might as well not exist. As for the DMG options, they're a start but only a start and I don't think they go nearly far enough to change the overall experience.

 

[Lanefan]

I have not found that my youngest get players have any problems with kit bashing D&D, once they start their own campaigns. In fact, it's usually the first thing they do. One group immediately decided to adapt it to a modern setting for their campaign, for example. So the spirit of Rule 0 is alive and well, IMO.

Could that be because they're learning from/being mentored by someone who himself has no problem with kitbashing a system?

 

[Imaro]

Only if what you're looking for is more or less the experience 5e sets out to deliver: heroic play, mostly combat-centered yet relatively low-risk, low to very low in-character frustration, limited interaction with the setting outside the adventures, and a bit meta.

Thus, the design that's been tossed off to the players (or more accurately, the DMs) is all the kitbashing required (noted in italics) in order to achieve any of:

--- non-heroic and-or low-powered play [major top-to-bottom overhaul]
--- most downtime activities: stronghold building, training, magic item economy [port these in from other systems/editions
--- exploration for its own sake at any sort of granular level [remove a few spells, add explore rules, change overall focus and pacing]
--- resource management being important [remove a few spells, change player expectations]
--- no meta-currencies [remove inspiration, halfling luck, and anything else that can alter a die roll after the fact]
--- higher and-or more random lethality/risk [reduce everyone's hit points, change death mechanics, port in risks from other editions]
--- greater in-character difficulty [no rerolls on skill checks, fail always means fail, 'nothing happens' is a viable and expected outcome]

1. Buy Symbaroum or Talislanta 5e
2. Matt Colville as well as many other have released rules for strongholds, but more importantly 5e has downtime rules regardless of whether you like them or not.
3. There are plenty of articles about running exploration as Skill challenges all over the internet the DMG provides hazzards for various environments... what else do you need?
4. Actually track resources then... arrows, rations, spell components, etc.
5.You need rules to remove inspiration or to ban OPTIONAL feats... really stretching here.
6. The game addresses this already as have 3rd party publishers... Professor DM has a supplement on Drivethru rpg that does this.
7. If you want greater difficulty... increase the DC... nothing happens is already the default for failure...

Then there's the design/kitbashing required to overcome and fix baked-in elements that some (many?) see as problems:

--- making stealth/hiding/perception work in a realistic manner [probably needs its own bespoke subsystem]
--- more randomness and unpredictability in combat [non-cyclical initiative, fumbles, fog of war rules]
--- casting being too easy/reliable/accurate [major rework of casting mechanics]

That's a lot of design work you're asking a DM to do to even achieve 1/3 of these things. And yet IMO D&D, while still providing the experience it does now, should at the same time be equally able to provide these different experiences without the DM having to become an amateur game designer.

If it's not in the initial core books it might as well not exist. As for the DMG options, they're a start but only a start and I don't think they go nearly far enough to change the overall experience.

1. Realistic? Can you lay out what realistic stealth is??
2. Look in your DMG
3. There are supplements that cover this as well.

Sorry don't agree that if it's not in the initial core books it might as well not exist. Anyone trying to mod or change 5e is going to be looking for ways to do it aka googling. If they're not they either don't care enough to make the change or they and their players are content with whatever solution they come up with... it's a game not brain surgery, no one's life is lost if someone is happy with a subpar modification.