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

[Oofta]

I think it’s being used pretty consistently. It’s about openness with and about game mechanics.



But if the game expects GMs and players to make sausage themselves, then I don’t get the resistance to the idea.

I'm saying it's not a particularly realistic expectation. There's a difference. They have to take into account page count and effort; for something like the detail you seem to be advocating that would require a lot of work. Besides that what, exactly, would need that detail? At some level every paragraph in the book has some thought put behind it. I could see a separate "Making of" book might be of interest but I don't think it makes sense to expect much in the core book. If you want to know the theory behind writing an RPG, there are a lot of resources out there.

Everyone knows the DMG needs an upgrade so we'll see what we get later this year, but for some people no reasonable amount of explanation for people would be enough. For that matter, most people don't care. It's just not going to interest most people playing D&D. I don't need to know the theory behind why they made bows dex based in order to have a house rule to make them finesse so strength based PCs have a decent ranged attack option.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm saying it's not a particularly realistic expectation. There's a difference. They have to take into account page count and effort; for something like the detail you seem to be advocating that would require a lot of work. Besides that what, exactly, would need that detail? At some level every paragraph in the book has some thought put behind it. I could see a separate "Making of" book might be of interest but I don't think it makes sense to expect much in the core book. If you want to know the theory behind writing an RPG, there are a lot of resources out there.

Everyone knows the DMG needs an upgrade so we'll see what we get later this year, but for some people no reasonable amount of explanation for people would be enough. For that matter, most people don't care. It's just not going to interest most people playing D&D. I don't need to know the theory behind why they made bows dex based in order to have a house rule to make them finesse so strength based PCs have a decent ranged attack option.

Plenty of other games do it. It's not the impossible task you seem to think.

Just say you don't want it and you like what you like and shruggy emoji and let's call it a day.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

To be fair, those are crap. I am fully on board with 5e's approach of making the magic items an extra rather than an expected default, but I could still use a system for gauging the relative power/value of them. Rarity system is supposed to be that, but it is frankly terrible. Like Cap of Water Breathing and Potion of Water Breathing are both uncommon. So one use vs infinite uses, just as good! Xanathar helps a bit, by saying that consumables should only cost half of the cost of permanent item, but this still seems obviously wrong. And examples of item that do literally the exact same thing, but are of different rarities have been provided. It is just a mess.

One can argue about the value of guidelines, but if a guideline is provided, it should actually work. And I don't think the item rarity and pricing does.

Hopefully they'll go into more detail in the 2024 edition.

I mean I hope they make it to actually do what it is supposed to.

 

[Lanefan]

How much do boots of flying help an archer? How about a melee fighter? How many enemies have flying in your game or effective ranged attacks? Do your encounters tend to happen outside or locations where people can fly out of reach of melee enemies?

That's just one simple example off the top of my head. I get you want some standard formula but it just doesn't exist. It can't. If you give out items you know your game, how you run it and your players better than WOTC. If you give people an item and the next couple of encounters are too easy, make the encounters a bit more difficult in the future. If you load up a low level party with a bunch or rare or very rare items, they're likely to be quite a bit more powerful.

I just don't see any of this being something that can be boiled down to a formula or, to be honest, all that difficult to figure out with a bit of trial and error. A +2 sword is more effective than a +1. Giving someone magic armor, shield, and cloak or ring of protection is going to make them difficult to hit.

They give you a price guideline now in XGtE which is probably about as accurate as anything we've ever had. I'd like to see a discussion of how much magic items and what rarity people should have at what level but include a discussion of low, medium and high magic campaigns. But an exact calculation of effect? It's never going to happen.

An exact calculation of effect might never happen but you can get a pretty good idea of relative value by considering, for any given item:

--- if a party had one, how much use would it see; and
--- in the general setting, how much demand is there likely to be for this item; and
--- how much does it cost in time-materials-etc. to make and-or anchant one.

Where certain armour types are banned for some classes, for example, +x leather is likely to be worth a bit more than +x scale (where x is the same) simply because a wider variety of classes can use leather and thus there's more demand.

"Staple" items such as bags of holding should by these standards be hella costly due to their universal usefulness and high demand. The only thing making something like a +3 polearm expensive, however, would be the requirements to make one; as it's of limited usefulness and likely very low demand.

And so no, there's no standard formula; and to make a good price guide requires going through the list of items with a fine-tooth comb. It's tedious, yes, but ideally only has to be done once.

 

[Lanefan]

So from a thread on the ICE forums titled... What is Wrong with Rolemaster...


"RM system isn't bad, it works quite fine until you come to the magic items/herbs part, which are clearly based on a completely different scale. Really, they make absolutely no sense compared to all the other things.
And no, imo the "prices are there only as a reference" and "magical items aren't to be sold" arguments are not very strong.
If prices are there only as a comparison, that should be another reason for them to make sense! A price based on a totally different scale than everything else is not really helpful if you're trying to compare the value of two items.
And if magic items aren't to be sold, then just say so in the book! That would be much better than giving weird prices (that make people think that the items are actually purchasable)."

"Where it all falls apart is the cost of magic, be it items or spell casting fees. Herbs in particular are rediculous. If I don''t outright change the cost, I start by reducing magic items to a silver base in cost and herbs to a Bp base )don't get me started on the broken time for production rules in Treasure Companion...perfect for an elven society, crap for us lesser mortals). This brings herbs in particular into line with the economy and makes them expensive but affordable to the middle class, who generate 3-10x the base line income."

"The cost of magic items and other economics of magic really depend on how magical the setting is. In a rare magic setting, forget hiring mages, you are questing to even find them, and magic items are super rare as well. In a common magic setting with lots of high level casters, it makes sense to have rates to hire a caster and magic items should be common enough that they are feasible to buy. Not sure a single set of guidelines can cover both possibilities, it might be better to discuss them in the context of setting and give two or three options."

"I'd rather see guidelines, given the way some folks can latch onto rules. So much of how cheap/expensive magic items are relates directly to the magical prevalence/power level of the setting, along with tech levels and resource availability. I adjusted most costs to suit my world, which was mid-level in terms of magic stuff (nowhere near as common as, say AErth) and fairly advanced when it came to metals and mining. Herbs had a sliding cost based on where they came from and rarity. Some of the RM2 stuff was pretty useful for this, but it always felt like something that was tacked on to the basic rules."


Well that all sounds familiar...

Are these item/herb pricing rules player-facing or DM-only?

If they're player-facing, that's the root error right there regardless of what the price lists actually say.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah I was seeing that as a pretty common thing on the forums while looking through them but I think it just highlights what I and @Oofta have been stating. The Devs for 5e could have thrown something together for 5e but we'd all just be complaining about it being bad design and trying to design for our own specific campaign worlds anyway. The only way I see this working is in a game that highly constrains the type of campaign you could run or that seriously downgrades the power of magic items.

The designers throwing something together as a baseline for people to tweak is still a huge improvement on leaving everyone to make it up for themselves from scratch.

That said, there's "throwing something together" and there's "putting some real thought into it", and it's easy to tell the difference once you see the results.

 

[Oofta]

Transparency, to me, is three things:

1. If something is designed for a function, you tell players what that function is.

1. If a subsystem is designed to serve a particular end, you explain this at least to the DM, preferably with examples and contrast.

1. If you have intentionally left something open-ended and it is not overwhelmingly obvious why that is the case, you say something about it.

[note: screwed up format d'oh!]

For the first, if the Barbarian is designed to be a "tanky bruiser" (someone who tends to be quite durable, but can also dish it out about as well as they can take it, to appropriate a term from MOBAs), then you present that information to the player, e.g. "The Barbarian is a juggernaut, able to wade through the slings and arrows of battle and pummel their foes in kind." If the Bard is designed to have a baseline of control and support effects, but easily flex into any focus someone might like, you might describe that as, "Bards are beguilers, soothsayers, and tricksters, giving succor to their allies and putting their foes into disarray, but they are also supremely flexible, each building their own repertoire of signature spells. How they come by such esoteric knowledge is often a carefully-guarded secret."

What can I say. I don't think this is necessary, form follows function and all that. I can't think of much of anything in the book that would be particularly confusing.

For the second, wealth-by-level options for various campaign styles, and ways to support different campaign focuses or player interests. E.g. 4e's Inherent Bonus rules are great for a gritty, low-magic game, while PF1e's idea of "capital" is a useful way to handle acquiring goods of various kinds that don't need to be narrowly described but which can be bought, sold, or traded. Explaining how and (equally important) whyone would use or not use various rules and techniques.

Again, I think the subsystems pretty much speak for themselves. I think more examples would help, hopefully we'll see more later this year. But I agree in the wealth (including magic items) by level with tiers of low, medium and high would be a good idea and have said it a few times. We agree! Shocking I know.

For the third, I've already given the example of 13A's epic Linguist feat, but to spell it out in full: The Adventurer tier feat makes you proficient (but not fluent) in most basic spoken languages (e.g. D&D's common, undercommon, goblinoid, etc.), but your vocabulary is very adventurer-centric. The Champion-tier feat (which, by default, requires the Adventurer-tier feat be taken first) makes you fluent in essentially all living languages and proficient with most dead languages, if it's not been actively concealed or thoroughly lost to time. It then says in a sidebar, as noted above, "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." In other words, whatever it is you want it to do, go for it, because there's no way we could meet that need any better than you can.

And, to be clear, that last bit is NOT indicating that you're somehow "only allowed" to do things your way if it's been specified. It is, instead, a notice (or perhaps warning) that the designers have left that completely up to you, they aren't even going to try to fill that gap, because everything they do will necessarily fall short. For things that don't get that disclaimer, the implication is not, and should not ever be understood as, "You are beholden to these rules to the last letter, and God help you if you ever stray." It is, instead, "We worked very hard to test these rules so that they work reliably, across a broad range of both common and uncommon player experiences. Try to use them if you can, because it will save you time and effort. But if you find that they aren't working for you, please, do what it takes to address that. We'll try to help by explaining how and why we did things, so you can make informed, purposeful decisions about how to do it your way."

Not sure why you need to state this any more than it already is. There's a fair amount in the DMG on how to run the game. The Role of the Dice goes into it for example. They discuss, for example, that PCs shouldn't have rare items until at least 5th level but it's just a suggestion. There should be more, it goes along with the wealth table.

A price list, preferably with additional advice regarding different kinds of campaigns, or campaigns that have a heavy economic or production focus (that is, games where characters try to get into the magic item "biz" as it were.) Rarity by level is a start, but a spread of options (e.g. no/low/mid/high magic) is a significant improvement. A discussion talking about how, due to D&D's overall combat focus, combat items are generally more valuable than non-combat ones, but that context should also be taken into account. Ideally, less a pricing "formula" and more a pricing process for how to develop custom item prices; something like "start with the baseline rarity, then factor in the intended potency of the item (e.g. a +3 Vorpal Flaming Longsword is clearly much stronger than just a +3 longsword), and finally consider the item in the context of the campaign, e.g. a headband of ancient dragon intellect (setting Int to 23) is probably going to be a lot more valuable in an intrigue-heavy campaign with a Wizard PC than it is in a pure-combat game where the only full casters are a Cleric and a Bard. Again, less "formula" and more "clear, specific processes with examples to help people make their own decisions."

Because yeah...the "rarity" guidelines in the 5e DMG? They ain't that. At all. Unless you already have a very firm grasp of exactly how you want magic items to work, they're barely more than loose suggestions.

The price list back in old school DM? It was just numbers thrown in with little to no logic. There has never been a very coherent price or rarity system in D&D. On the other hand between the DMG and XGtE we have it.

The guidelines in the DMG were crap from the very beginning, and the online discourse of the time demonstrated that rather well. I saw numerous discussions asking, more or less, "how on earth do I handle magic items?????" Or, worse, the tedious and near-constant stream of "gold is worthless in 5e" threads.

Giving more advice and guidelines three years later is, I think you would agree, too little, too late. If the edition that must not be named gets held to account for taking only eight months to address various issues present at launch, I'm absolutely going to hold 5e to task for taking four and a half times as long.


At least it's more specific than "fun." Which is genuinely meaningless as a target. Transparency, at least you know that it's about being clear with your intentions and communicating things to the DM and/or players. "Fun" is so broad as to refer to truly anything at all. Some people, in some contexts, find 52 Pickup "fun."

Everyone knows the DMG needs to be redone, the devs have stated it multiple times. We'll see what we get later this year.

 

[Lanefan]

So are you for or against transparency?

On the question of being for or against transparency in magic item design-construction-pricing, my answer is "yes".

For it, for the DM.

Against it, for the players.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What can I say. I don't think this is necessary, form follows function and all that. I can't think of much of anything in the book that would be particularly confusing.

Okay... according to the books, should a DM announce all DCs to players ahead of a roll? Some? Or none?

What are the advantages to each approach?

This is a pretty fundamental element of play, and one of the prime functions of the DM in play. As such, it likely deserves explicit instruction, no?

On the question of being for or against transparency in magic item design-construction-pricing, my answer is "yes".

For it, for the DM.

Against it, for the players.

Thank you for answering the question!

 

[Lanefan]

But for God's sake, literally NOT GIVING prices to items? At all? How is that useful to anyone?

Agreed.

"Common items, 101-500 gp" so...healing potions are over 100 gp each?? What?

Sure, why not? If it costs 125 g.p. in materials to make one, its street value will quite reasonably never be less than that.

That said, just lumping vast numbers of different items into broad commonality buckets and then giving a range of price for each commonality level isn't much more use than nothing at all; as a) it doesn't take into account either market demand or in-field usefulness and b) it still leaves the DM having to set the price each time for each item.