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

[Hussar]

Ok. Here’s an example of where DnD went from transparent to opaque.

Start with the 3e wealth by level assumptions. That was very clear. A character of level X was presumed to have Y wealth in gear. Everything in the game was then based on those presumptions. Magic item values were based on how much power they grant to the pc.

Not that the system was perfect. Far from it. But it was completely transparent.

Then comes 4e which takes this a step further by not only presuming wealth by level but then also plunking magic items into the phb equipment lists and then advising players and DMs to use wish lists. Equipment as a character building tool same as proficiencies or feats.

And people strongly reacted to that.

So now we have 5e’s magic items. Not assumed in anything. Meant as power ups. But the rarity system is never actually explained. What level should a character start seeing “very rare” items? Who knows? Figure it out yourself. Never minding that rarity does not equal utility. After all a potion of supreme healing is equivalent to a 25 Strength Belt of Giant Strength. Because that makes total sense.

Does anyone think that it helps game play to make the magic item system totally opaque?

 

[payn]

Ok. Here’s an example of where DnD went from transparent to opaque.

Start with the 3e wealth by level assumptions. That was very clear. A character of level X was presumed to have Y wealth in gear. Everything in the game was then based on those presumptions. Magic item values were based on how much power they grant to the pc.

Not that the system was perfect. Far from it. But it was completely transparent.

Problem is it was anything but transparent in action. If I had a nickel for every GM that argued with me that WBL in 3E wasn't a real thing or simply didnt matter... This was a very misunderstood aspect of D&D at the time. A big part of that was moving from old school to nu skool D&D.

Then comes 4e which takes this a step further by not only presuming wealth by level but then also plunking magic items into the phb equipment lists and then advising players and DMs to use wish lists. Equipment as a character building tool same as proficiencies or feats.

And people strongly reacted to that.

I dont blame them. Wish list? Why not just build the assumptions into leveling?

So now we have 5e’s magic items. Not assumed in anything. Meant as power ups. But the rarity system is never actually explained. What level should a character start seeing “very rare” items? Who knows? Figure it out yourself. Never minding that rarity does not equal utility. After all a potion of supreme healing is equivalent to a 25 Strength Belt of Giant Strength. Because that makes total sense.

Does anyone think that it helps game play to make the magic item system totally opaque?

/raises hand. If the GM never gives magic items, the system works. If they give them out, the players have an edge. I prefer magic items not expected in the math, but do cool things instead. I do believe a lot of this was meant to be a dial used in modularity but we all know that died on the vine.

 

[pemerton]

Wish list? Why not just build the assumptions into leveling?

Magic items, in 4e, work on a different "economy" from level-based features (feats, powers, etc): they are movable across PCs; they can be rebuilt, at a cost (by using Disenchant and Enchant rituals); they are based on a slot economy; etc.

Whether all this fiddliness is good or bad is of course a matter of taste, but its difference from level-based features is there.

 

[Imaro]

Ok. Here’s an example of where DnD went from transparent to opaque.

Start with the 3e wealth by level assumptions. That was very clear. A character of level X was presumed to have Y wealth in gear. Everything in the game was then based on those presumptions. Magic item values were based on how much power they grant to the pc.

Not that the system was perfect. Far from it. But it was completely transparent.

Then comes 4e which takes this a step further by not only presuming wealth by level but then also plunking magic items into the phb equipment lists and then advising players and DMs to use wish lists. Equipment as a character building tool same as proficiencies or feats.

And people strongly reacted to that.

So now we have 5e’s magic items. Not assumed in anything. Meant as power ups. But the rarity system is never actually explained. What level should a character start seeing “very rare” items? Who knows? Figure it out yourself. Never minding that rarity does not equal utility. After all a potion of supreme healing is equivalent to a 25 Strength Belt of Giant Strength. Because that makes total sense.

Does anyone think that it helps game play to make the magic item system totally opaque?

I think it helped gameplay to make magic items optional... but then I don't understand how you set up assumptions and/or an economy for something that is optional...

The minute you say magic item X should be assigned to level Y characters... and put them in the PHB they aren't optional or a worldbuilding element, they become expected (The thing that kept this in check in 3e was that they were still, for the most part, under the purview of the DM). The strong reaction to 4e wasn't because of transparency but because magic items weren't treasure or a reward any longer... they became a PC build component, which in turn inherently dictated truths about the DM's world and made magic items about pure optimization. They patched this with inherent bonuses, but that came later.

 

[payn]

Magic items, in 4e, work on a different "economy" from level-based features (feats, powers, etc): they are movable across PCs; they can be rebuilt, at a cost (by using Disenchant and Enchant rituals); they are based on a slot economy; etc.

Whether all this fiddliness is good or bad is of course a matter of taste, but its difference from level-based features is there.

I'd say the issue is relying on the GM to give them out at the right time. GMs may see it as a reward only given when earned, but if the system expects them, its a bad situation (see 3E).

 

[hawkeyefan]

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!"

No, I'm not implying anything. I'm flat out saying I think No Man's Sky stinks. That doesn't mean any other game stinks.

I don't think that 5e is crap. But I don't care how many copies it or No Man's Sky sells.... that doesn't equal quality. If we're going to discuss the quality of something, I'm going to discuss the thing itself and not how many people buy it.

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?

Do I really need to? Hasn't that discussion happened a million times? I said what I had to say... if D&D provided everything, then what are all those 3rd party providers making? Obviously, there are gaps.

The reason I don't consider 3rd party products to be all that meaningful to this discussion... which is about designing or GMing with conscious thought about the player experience... is because sooo much of it is crap. We have no way of knowing if any 3rd party product actually adheres to the design intentions of the game.

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.

I'm not saying any game needs to "do everything". I'm saying that whatever the game intends you to do, they should provide the means to do it.

It's really that simple.

"Means" can be either the actual rules themselves, or it can mean guidance on how to effectively add elements to your game that fit in with the base game and will deliver the desired experience in play.

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.

I'm not complaining about anything.

I disagree with you about the confusion, though; I think there is confusion about what D&D is... which you can see from all the different opinions about D&D in the many threads that discuss it.

 

[Oofta]

No, I'm not implying anything. I'm flat out saying I think No Man's Sky stinks. That doesn't mean any other game stinks.

I've never played the game, but just because you don't personally care for it doesn't mean that other people don't enjoy playing. If you want to talk about a game that stinks I give you The Day Before. Much hyped it crashed and burned so badly that the studio shut down after it's release and the game was pulled from Steam with everyone getting a refund. No Man's Sky? It just doesn't live up to the hype or some people's expectations.

I don't think that 5e is crap. But I don't care how many copies it or No Man's Sky sells.... that doesn't equal quality. If we're going to discuss the quality of something, I'm going to discuss the thing itself and not how many people buy it.



Do I really need to? Hasn't that discussion happened a million times? I said what I had to say... if D&D provided everything, then what are all those 3rd party providers making? Obviously, there are gaps.

The reason I don't consider 3rd party products to be all that meaningful to this discussion... which is about designing or GMing with conscious thought about the player experience... is because sooo much of it is crap. We have no way of knowing if any 3rd party product actually adheres to the design intentions of the game.

The core of D&D was put into CC for a reason. Unlike TSR, WOTC would rather have other companies fill in niche play.

I'm not saying any game needs to "do everything". I'm saying that whatever the game intends you to do, they should provide the means to do it.

It's really that simple.

"Means" can be either the actual rules themselves, or it can mean guidance on how to effectively add elements to your game that fit in with the base game and will deliver the desired experience in play.



I'm not complaining about anything.

I disagree with you about the confusion, though; I think there is confusion about what D&D is... which you can see from all the different opinions about D&D in the many threads that discuss it.

The strength of D&D is that I can run my own game how I want. The weakness? Pretty much the same thing. Personally I think the strength outweighs the weakness, I don't want a 1 true way game like they tried to do with 4E.

 

[Lanefan]

Ok. Here’s an example of where DnD went from transparent to opaque.

Start with the 3e wealth by level assumptions. That was very clear. A character of level X was presumed to have Y wealth in gear. Everything in the game was then based on those presumptions.

More or less correct, yes.

Magic item values were based on how much power they grant to the pc.

Errr...not so much. Magic item values were based on a formula, with that formula based on level and-or expected rarity, with little to no regard for how much power (as measured by in-the-field usefulness) each of those items granted a character or party. Sure, a +3 item was always worth less than a +4 version of the same item; but the formula only looked at the '+3' piece and didn't really consider what that +3 was attached to. An item that boosted Con or Dex, for example, should have been worth more than something that boosted Str or Cha by the same amount, due to sheer breadth of utility.

Had usefulness been a consideration, wands of cure light wounds (for example) would have had an extra couple of zeroes on their price.

Not that the system was perfect. Far from it. But it was completely transparent.

I'll grant that it was transparent. As a player I didn't like it because I found it both artificially limiting and something that as a player I simply didn't need to know.

Then comes 4e which takes this a step further by not only presuming wealth by level but then also plunking magic items into the phb equipment lists and then advising players and DMs to use wish lists. Equipment as a character building tool same as proficiencies or feats.

While at the same time kinda wrecking the mystery and-or wonder of finding an item in the field (4e also made it trivially easy for characters to learn item properties, if memory serves).

And people strongly reacted to that.

As well they should IMO, for two reasons: loss of mystery, and too much of a sense of pre-packaging. Item lists and pricing etc. should be DM-side info only.

So now we have 5e’s magic items. Not assumed in anything. Meant as power ups. But the rarity system is never actually explained. What level should a character start seeing “very rare” items? Who knows? Figure it out yourself. Never minding that rarity does not equal utility. After all a potion of supreme healing is equivalent to a 25 Strength Belt of Giant Strength. Because that makes total sense.

Agreed that rarity does not equal utility. But also note that (for some inexplicable reason!) 5e by design doesn't put prices or values on magic items, thus the rarity piece is merely a guide for the DM as to how often to place (or to expect to see) these items.

Does anyone think that it helps game play to make the magic item system totally opaque?

Opaque from the DM? No.

Opaque from the players? Very much yes.

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to "transparency", which actually seems to mean having the same expectations for every group, one person's flaw is another person's fix. First of all, I think everyone agrees that the DMG needs to be redone. I'd like to see them have some very general guidelines for treasure. But I'd want something along the lines of low, medium and high magic campaign with some discussion of why you'd target different levels.

But I also understand why they did it. Especially in 4E getting new upgraded items wasn't really a reward, it was more of a hamster wheel. You didn't get better because of the +5 weapon, you just needed it to keep up. In my campaigns, I'm pretty stingy because I want the character abilities to matter more than the items. Even in my 20th level game, only 1 person had +2 armor and weapons maxed out at +1 although I added special features to some. Well except for the paladin with a Holy Avenger because if you're a 20th level paladin you really should have it.

We'll see what they do with the 2024 edition. In the meantime if you need that kind of info, it's a google search away.

 

[Lanefan]

Do I really need to? Hasn't that discussion happened a million times? I said what I had to say... if D&D provided everything, then what are all those 3rd party providers making? Obviously, there are gaps.

The reason I don't consider 3rd party products to be all that meaningful to this discussion... which is about designing or GMing with conscious thought about the player experience... is because sooo much of it is crap. We have no way of knowing if any 3rd party product actually adheres to the design intentions of the game.

This seems self-contradictory - the gaps those 3pp are trying to fill are more often than not gaps (or perceived errors) in the design intentions of the game...and thus the whole point of said 3pp product might specifically be to not adhere to those design intentions. This is unrelated to whether or not said 3pp product is any good: it could adhere faithfully to the design intentions and still be garbage, or conversely could blow up the design intentions and be excellent.