D&D (2024) D&D species article

[Micah Sweet]

You will note that I did not use the word "lazy." I referred to it as bad design, because that's exactly what it is, and I explained why it is bad, without simply declaring it so.

Game design is a technology and a technique. As a result, wholly apart from the aesthetic interests, it can be evaluated on at least two different measures:
(a) Does the design achieve the play-goals for which it was designed? AKA: Does the system do the thing it tells you it's supposed to do?
(b) Does the design make thrifty and/or wise use of the tools it employs? AKA: Are the parts executed well, regardless of whether they do what they're supposed to do?

Shoehorning the vast, vast majority of supernatural things into spells--for God's sake, they tried to make WARLOCK PACTS into spells!!!--fails on both of these measures. In blindly shoving everything into a single box allegedly with the goal of making the system easier to approach, it actually makes the system harder to approach, because now, new players need to have reasonably deep knowledge of the spells system in order to make effective characters in the VAST majority of situations. Stuffing so many things into one ill-fitting basket does not make them easier to learn, particularly given how ludicrously diverse "spells" are as a category.

And as for "thrift," the only thrift is in slimming down every chapter that isn't the spells chapter...which, by the way, the chapters dedicated to spells (how they work, and then the list thereof) are the lion's share of the PHB. It's neither thrifty nor wise, doubly so when (at least prior to the last couple years) they didn't even print creatures with the text of the spells they know, just the names. Cue continuous book-flipping, or digital lookup (or, I guess, pre-printed text the DM had to prepare for herself), just to run a single combat.

As both an exercise in the technology of designing games, and as a demonstration of game design technique, the absolute kindest thing you can say about 5e is that it is a hot mess, and the fact that they try to shove nearly everything into "spells" is one of the greater errors the design team has committed to.

What exactly does the WotC 5e system tell us it's supposed to do?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

They chose a simpler, easier to design path.

Agreed.

I think it's fair to see that as lazy subjectively.

No. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to chose the easy design path.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

IME, that generally requires that the game have a "voice." Much as @EzekielRaiden said earlier, D&D 5e has always struck me as a game that was afraid to have one. I don't think that has always been the case with D&D either. There are versions of the game with IMHO clear voices: e.g., 1e D&D, B/X, 4e D&D, etc.

We have a thread about the Od&D voice... better to have none.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's how democracy works.

Sounds like what you're saying is support the status quo or stay out of the way.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You will note that I did not use the word "lazy." I referred to it as bad design, because that's exactly what it is, and I explained why it is bad, without simply declaring it so.

Other said "lazy". No need to look up who. That is what I answered to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Keep in mind these "newer players" are still in the honeymoon phase and typically buy every book that comes out.

The amount of money I spent on official and unofficial 3E stuff was DUMB.

I can't blame WotC for being a corp and doing corp things. You cater to those who spend the most $. And those of us who have been in this game awhile aren't it.

I only own the Core 3 5E and the Dragonlance book and the Planescape book. I'll likey just buy the Core 3 5.5 books and be even more picky over what adventure books I buy. Frankly, the adventure quality output has been poor so.... But that's been discussed over and over in other threads.

You're never going to make the best version of your product by ignoring the portion of your customer base that's been supporting you the longest. They know the most about the product, what you done and tried to do over your history, and how circumstances at the time affected those attempts. In short it is a form of institutional wisdom.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think they are quite straight forward.

Then explain it to me. What are they trying to do, and have they been honest about it? Both those things matter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed.

No. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to chose the easy design path.

Again I want that "confused" emoji.

 

[Aldarc]

We have a thread about the Od&D voice... better to have none.

In your rush to quip non-answers for internet points, it may have escaped your notice that I didn't list OD&D. That aside, mentioning that feels a bit like a red herring to the wider point that is being made about games having a clear voice or 5e lacking one regarding its play. We can look at other non-Gygax games with voices. What other ad hominems will you make to avoid engaging with that point when you don't have Gygax's sexism to use as distraction?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What exactly does the WotC 5e system tell us it's supposed to do?

Oh, numerous things!

It tells us about the three pillars, the things that are core gameplay experiences every character should be prepared to face (but which many characters are not, much to my frustration.)
It tells us that it is a cooperative game, one about "heroic adventure" (fairly sure that's an exact quote, at least from the 5.0 PHB). Being a cooperative roleplaying game significantly narrows the design space--we don't need to worry about balancing PVP, because that's not something the game is supposed to do. If someone chooses to do that, more power to them, but nothing in the text supports doing so and indeed several parts instruct against it for various (IMO good) reasons.
It tells us that players need to pick a race, a class, and a background in order to start playing. Some of these are, per designer commentary, more complex than others. That part is good; offering a range of complexity options is almost always beneficial for a game seeking a wide audience. The problem, of course, is that several of these options are simply not nearly as good as several others--in all three categories. Nothing is said about this being an intentional design goal, and given the designers do talk about wanting to make a balanced game, that would seem to be an issue.

The above, plus a handful of other things, provide us with tons of information about the kind of game the books are telling us we're supposed to get. Whether or not the books actually deliver on that is a different question (and you already know that my answer is "frequently, they don't.")

And that's not even touching the DM-facing side of things, which is significantly worse!