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

[Imaro]

You're the one insisting that there could be a formula that tells you exactly what impact a magic item has. How this would work, what it would look like, how to account for table variation? "Feedback!" That is ridiculous. It's a pipe dream, something that cannot work unless you have a much more constrained system and throw DM empowerment out the window.

We are not playing a board game or an MMO. There simply is no way to figure out how a specific magical item will affect a party because there are simply too many variables. A fair number of items will be relatively straightforward, a +2 weapon is better than a +1. But how much does a flaming rapier change? Is it in the hands of a rogue, a paladin or a fighter? What level are they? What are the PC's ability scores? A high level rogue with a 20 dex sees minimal difference in damage, a fighter is adding 3.5 average damage to every attack that hits, at higher levels and with action surge that could start to add up.

On the other hand, a DM that has a good idea of what their PCs are can have a decent grasp. If an item is more powerful than expected, which happens sometimes, they an change course the next game. I'm not pushing back against what you want as transparency because I think it's an inherently bad idea, I'm pushing back because what you want is impossible.

It's so easy and anyone can do it and yet I still haven't seen an example of total transparency in magic item design... just examples of items and DM judgement (exactly what 5e provides)

On top of that we've now moved into @hawkeyefan and @Hussar dismissing and misrepresenting arguments as opposed to addressing them.

No one has argued against transparency but magic items aren't a feasible example of where that's possible in 5e without them occupying a totally different design space in D&D (as 4e did with them)... instead of conceding this and moving on to a better example they've decided to misrepresent what's being argued against ( transparency" as a whole)... and since it's their misrepresentation also choosing to provide the reasoning and motivation for the other side...

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think anyone is arguing for that. I argue that the open-ended design of D&D is a feature, not a flaw, and I think that's what a lot of folks are similarly suggesting. I do not like systems that are overly detailed; I think 5e hits a sweet spot of offering enough guidance while letting the DM sort out the details with many aspects of gameplay.

I don't find D&D's rules and systems vague and hard to understand. I do think the DMG could do a better job offering guidance on different ways to play the game, but I don't think D&D should aspire to narrowly defined game experiences in the manner of, say Monster Hearts or Dread.

I don't think anyone is saying that D&D shouldn't have an open-ended design. I certainly haven't. I've said they may or may not, but whichever they do, they should support it fully.

Are you against more guidance on how to create your own rules for D&D? Or more advice on how to effectively modify existing rules? Or how to properly adjust rules without messing up the core game balance?

I just don't get the resistance to this idea.

Even if you think D&D has done a good job of this, one would think it's still seen as a positive. And the idea that it can always be improved seems pretty easy to understand. So what's the issue?

 

[hawkeyefan]

On top of that we've now moved into @hawkeyefan and @Hussar dismissing and misrepresenting arguments as opposed to addressing them.

I don't know how I could possibly be misrepresenting something that I don't even understand.

What is your argument?

 

[Imaro]

I don't know how I could possibly be misrepresenting something that I don't even understand.

What is your argument?

If you don't understand it why proclaim both I and @Oofta are arguing against transparency or the comment about internet experts? As opposed to asking for clarification about what confused you?

I think what we've argued against has been pretty clear for the last couple of pages, a specific example that was brought up to highlight transparency that in order to work would mean fundamental changes to 5e. If I am saying anything about transparency it's that for some things it's more nuanced and complex in practice than the simplistic... "Just be transparent about it, its easy" sentiment being espoused by some.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you don't understand it why proclaim both I and @Oofta are arguing against transparency or the comment about internet experts? As opposed to asking for clarification about what confused you?

I literally just did ask for clarification.

I think what we've argued against has been pretty clear for the last couple of pages, a specific example that was brought up to highlight transparency that in order to work would mean fundamental changes to 5e. If I am saying anything about transparency it's that for some things it's more nuanced and complex in practice than the simplistic... "Just be transparent about it, its easy" sentiment being espoused by some.

So are you for or against transparency?

 

[Oofta]

I literally just did ask for clarification.



So are you for or against transparency?

What does transparency mean to you when it comes to gaming? Because one proposal is that we have some sort of system that accurately tells the DM what kind of effect a magic item will have. I don't think that's realistic. Or is it sidebars that tell people why the devs made a decision they did? Because I went back to my 3.5 DMG and read through some*. In most cases it was similar to what we have with 5E with optional rules. In some cases it was explanation and alternatives, which to a certain degree we have in 5E. Some of it was academically interesting I suppose but wouldn't have helped me be a better DM.

But I would agree that the DMG needs to be improved. So do the people working on the new DMG. For example, I hope they pull in the purchasing magic item section from XGtE. I'd like to see a general idea of how much treasure is typical by level range, but also talk about low, medium and high levels of magic. Discuss matching up GP rewards with funds needed for the campaign goals. Does that count as transparency?

*I had forgotten that was how they structured the 3E DMG, it has been 15 years since I looked at it. There's nothing wrong with the stylistic choice of how to explain things, but it's the content that matters not the format.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're the one insisting that there could be a formula that tells you exactly what impact a magic item has.

I said nothing of the kind. Again, your ridiculous hyperbole does you no favors.

How this would work, what it would look like, how to account for table variation? "Feedback!" That is ridiculous. It's a pipe dream, something that cannot work unless you have a much more constrained system and throw DM empowerment out the window.

Firstly, yes, feedback is quite useful. Secondly, "DM empowerment" was never necessary, DMs are and always have been literally infinitely powerful. "Throwing it out the window" is simply recognizing that system design actually matters, rather than treating rules as mostly-useless vague suggestions.

It's so easy and anyone can do it and yet I still haven't seen an example of total transparency in magic item design... just examples of items and DM judgement (exactly what 5e provides)

You asked me about magic item pricing. I gave you examples.

On top of that we've now moved into @hawkeyefan and @Hussar dismissing and misrepresenting arguments as opposed to addressing them.

Ah, yes, because saying that [rules are for those things that would really benefit from already having a clear answer] is identical to [you MUST have a perfect, inviolable formula which precisely predicts every possible result always no matter what] is totally not "dismissing and misrepresenting arguments as opposed to addressing them."

Even though I very literally said that the "millimeter by millimeter trajectory" may differ significantly, but the "mile by mile trajectory" may be essentially identical and that the latter is where well-made rules live. I even explicitly said I support, for example, the areas in 13A where the system explicitly says things like, "There shouldn't be any need for an epic Linguist feat. If you really want one, you know what you want it for better than we do." That's an area that it is good, efficient, productive to not make rules, because you know whatever rules you provide will be mostly not very useful...and you call that out.

But for God's sake, literally NOT GIVING prices to items? At all? How is that useful to anyone? "Common items, 101-500 gp" so...healing potions are over 100 gp each?? What?

The "guidance" provided, as with most "guidance" in 5e, is barely even informational, let alone actually useful.

No one has argued against transparency

When I am back on my PC, I will provide examples which I believe were people doing exactly that.

 

[Oofta]

I said nothing of the kind. Again, your ridiculous hyperbole does you no favors.


Firstly, yes, feedback is quite useful. Secondly, "DM empowerment" was never necessary, DMs are and always have been literally infinitely powerful. "Throwing it out the window" is simply recognizing that system design actually matters, rather than treating rules as mostly-useless vague suggestions.


You asked me about magic item pricing. I gave you examples.


Ah, yes, because saying that [rules are for those things that would really benefit from already having a clear answer] is identical to [you MUST have a perfect, inviolable formula which precisely predicts every possible result always no matter what] is totally not "dismissing and misrepresenting arguments as opposed to addressing them."

Even though I very literally said that the "millimeter by millimeter trajectory" may differ significantly, but the "mile by mile trajectory" may be essentially identical and that the latter is where well-made rules live. I even explicitly said I support, for example, the areas in 13A where the system explicitly says things like, "There shouldn't be any need for an epic Linguist feat. If you really want one, you know what you want it for better than we do." That's an area that it is good, efficient, productive to not make rules, because you know whatever rules you provide will be mostly not very useful...and you call that out.

But for God's sake, literally NOT GIVING prices to items? At all? How is that useful to anyone? "Common items, 101-500 gp" so...healing potions are over 100 gp each?? What?

The "guidance" provided, as with most "guidance" in 5e, is barely even informational, let alone actually useful.


When I am back on my PC, I will provide examples which I believe were people doing exactly that.

So what is transparency to you? You just want a price list? What rarity would be appropriate by level? Guidelines are in the DMG with more given in XGtE. Hopefully they'll go into more detail in the 2024 edition.

But just tossing around a nebulous phrase "More transparency!" Is pretty meaningless because it seems to mean different things to different people.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What does transparency mean to you when it comes to gaming?

Look at many of my previous posts. I haven’t been using the term transparency as much as @Hussar, but it’s very much what I’ve been talking about.

I think any RPG text should be open about the design decisions made and the reasons for them. They should explain the reasons for decisions. They should offer examples AND explain what the example is doing and why. The text should talk about changes to the system and what may cause issues when doing so and why.

But I would agree that the DMG needs to be improved. So do the people working on the new DMG. For example, I hope they pull in the purchasing magic item section from XGtE. I'd like to see a general idea of how much treasure is typical by level range, but also talk about low, medium and high levels of magic. Discuss matching up GP rewards with funds needed for the campaign goals. Does that count as transparency?

It’s one example of it, yes.

 

[Oofta]

Look at many of my previous posts. I haven’t been using the term transparency as much as @Hussar, but it’s very much what I’ve been talking about.

I think any RPG text should be open about the design decisions made and the reasons for them. They should explain the reasons for decisions. They should offer examples AND explain what the example is doing and why. The text should talk about changes to the system and what may cause issues when doing so and why.




It’s one example of it, yes.

I don't see why the reasons behind rules matter to the vast majority of people who play. But I also don't see how they could possibly anticipate what people are going to change.

Like everyone, including the people that write the rules, typically the only way to know the impact is to playtest and find out.