D&D 5E (2014) 5e's big problem - Balancing "Being D&D" versus "Being Not D&D"

[El Mahdi]

...

Excellent points, and an excellent thread subject.

I think that the core system they make needs to absolutely "feel" like D&D...and only D&D. And has to have the modules necessary to make it "feel" like any specific edition of D&D. But I also think all of the ideas that could never be explored in D&D because of this limitation, should now be attempted, though in modular format.

To not explore things that may not "feel" like D&D with D&D Next, would be a waste of an incredible opportunity.

 

[Derren]

Considering that in todays age the trend goes towards streamlining/dumbing down for more action and "good" equals "simple enough so that everyone can play it" I don't mind the conservative approach.

 

[Oni]

"How can we make the best version of the D&D RPG possible?"

I actually disagree with nearly everything in the OP, but this in particular stuck out at me. This is exactly the question the designers should be asking, IMHO, not something to be avoided. Building the best rpg possible is absurdly broad and basically impossible since people have so many different taste, however building to a narrower goal at least gives some focus, and things that are built to purpose usually tend to be better at whatever they're built for than something that is simply trying to be best everything. There are tons of amazing, brilliant rpgs out there, but there is only one D&D, so why don't we let it be D&D instead of trying to make it something else.

 

[Hussar]

Just wanted to chime in and say that this is a really interesting conversation.

1. Exploder Wizard - only a D&D player would ever, ever try to claim that D&D is a "simple" game. You want a simple, abstract game, there's a bajillion of them out there. D&D is an extremely complex game with a bajillion rules. Even Mentzer Basic D&D, which only covers two level ups, is still 64 pages long.

That is not simple.

2. Oni - I would point out that Innerdude did not say, "Make the best RPG", he said, "Make the best D&D RPG". So, included in there is the obvious intent to make sure that the game is recognizable as D&D.

3. On the subjective/objective discussion. I largely agree that pure objectivity is impossible. It's probably not even desirable. But, I do think that every time you start to examine any mechanic, you have to set goals and be as objective as you possibly can.

 

[Guest 85555]

3. On the subjective/objective discussion. I largely agree that pure objectivity is impossible. It's probably not even desirable. But, I do think that every time you start to examine any mechanic, you have to set goals and be as objective as you possibly can.

I agree with this, but it often gets lost on people that this is what is going on. So you end up with folks claiming that subsystem A is objectively bad while subsystem B is objectivelu good (and those who feel subsystems in general are objectively bad or good). Also, even if you set those clear measures up to discuss things there needs to be room for subjective analysis. I mean just look at the endless debates on realism here. If we are evaluating a system on how realistic or believable it is we need to understand A) what "believable" means will vary and B) People will disagree on what makes a mechanic believable or not because they choose to focus on difference aspects of it (people are often okay handwaving on thing but not another). We are all adults so you would thing a protracted tangent about objectivity wouldn't be needed, but the endless baits and flames on these edition threads shows me people are having a hard time (myself included by the way) allowing others to have a different opinion without throwing in backhanded insult (i.e. Statements like "well i suppose if you enjoy games that don't make any sense and have no internal logic..."---an example not an actual quote).

 

[Oni]

2. Oni - I would point out that Innerdude did not say, "Make the best RPG", he said, "Make the best D&D RPG". So, included in there is the obvious intent to make sure that the game is recognizable as D&D.

Maybe it's all the cold medication I'm on, but that isn't what I got out of the OP, in fact I got pretty much the exact opposite of that.

 

[Guest 85555]

Maybe it's all the cold medication I'm on, but that isn't what I got out of the OP, in fact I got pretty much the exact opposite of that.

Me too.

 

[JamesonCourage]

2. Oni - I would point out that Innerdude did not say, "Make the best RPG", he said, "Make the best D&D RPG". So, included in there is the obvious intent to make sure that the game is recognizable as D&D.

Maybe it's all the cold medication I'm on, but that isn't what I got out of the OP, in fact I got pretty much the exact opposite of that.

Well, considering the OP said:

I'm becoming increasingly worried that truly innovative, improved game rules and ideas are getting tossed out simply because they don't meet the audience's view of "what D&D should be"--or more appropriately, what the designers perceive their audience's view of "what D&D should be."

Frankly, Wizards of the Coast, give me the best possible RPG you can make. If it happens to look and feel closer to some other game than the "historic" versions of D&D, I'm okay with that. If it looks and feels like a new game entirely, I think I'm okay with that too.

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious from his post he doesn't mind if doesn't feel like D&D. He'd rather it "feel" like D&D (according to the OP), but it's not more important than being "truly innovative" and the "best possible RPG" it can be. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

I agree with this, but it often gets lost on people that this is what is going on. So you end up with folks claiming that subsystem A is objectively bad while subsystem B is objectivelu good (and those who feel subsystems in general are objectively bad or good). Also, even if you set those clear measures up to discuss things there needs to be room for subjective analysis. I mean just look at the endless debates on realism here. If we are evaluating a system on how realistic or believable it is we need to understand A) what "believable" means will vary and B) People will disagree on what makes a mechanic believable or not because they choose to focus on difference aspects of it (people are often okay handwaving on thing but not another). We are all adults so you would thing a protracted tangent about objectivity wouldn't be needed, but the endless baits and flames on these edition threads shows me people are having a hard time (myself included by the way) allowing others to have a different opinion without throwing in backhanded insult (i.e. Statements like "well i suppose if you enjoy games that don't make any sense and have no internal logic..."---an example not an actual quote).

Would Xp you again, but I'm fresh out. Needless to say, I totally agree with you.

Maybe it's all the cold medication I'm on, but that isn't what I got out of the OP, in fact I got pretty much the exact opposite of that.

Heh... oops... ...... would help to go back and reread the OP before responding. My bad. Posting in too many threads and lost track. Sorry about that.