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

[mkill]

How is DnD not a sports team?

If D&D was a sports team:

* In every game, there is only one team on the field
* There is no championship
* Every TV would show a different game
* You can easily transfer the best player from the champion to your home team
* If you want, you can play with the 1974 champion team, forever
* Nobody cares if you walk down the street with your favorite team shirt

 

[Bedrockgames]

I do think 3E is closer to 2E than 4E is to 3E, but it definitely produces a different experience than earlier editions. The first thing i did with 3E was run a Ravenloft campaign (there was even a robust d20 ravenloft line). It never felt the same asmy 2E ravenloft games (but i continued to play it). For my homebrew 3E worked great, but my ravenloft campaigns (and i ran many for d20) continued to feel off. Just last year i ran a 2E Ravenloft and it was just like i remembered. Totally different experience. Can't put my finger on the difference though.

 

[Hussar]

What makes a good RPG is subjective. What you are saying is that you want something that you want, and if everybody else wants something else, they are wrong.

Ballocks. This is just wrong.

I can objectively look at Spawn of Fashan and say, "Yup, that's a bad game". I can objectively look at the 1e initiative rules and say, "Yup, that's poor game design". I can objectively look at lots and lots of things and say, "yup, that's not as good as it could be, and here's how."

The idea that a good RPG is subjective, so we shouldn't bother trying to change anything, is how we get piss poor rules sets.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Ballocks. This is just wrong.

I can objectively look at Spawn of Fashan and say, "Yup, that's a bad game". I can objectively look at the 1e initiative rules and say, "Yup, that's poor game design". I can objectively look at lots and lots of things and say, "yup, that's not as good as it could be, and here's how."

The idea that a good RPG is subjective, so we shouldn't bother trying to change anything, is how we get piss poor rules sets.

If the underlying math is off or the design doesn't meet the design goals, sure you have some ojbective measures of bad design. But I really do think more of this is subjective than anything else. You might find AD&D initiative bad, but plenty of others don't (there is a legitimate argument to be made for the value of how different mechanics feel and in my experience with 2E, the switch to a different die and roll under achieves a different feel). So why should we embrace your opinion on the matter as being more objective? Some people believe 4E is obhectively better than 3E, an equal number appear to feel it is objectively worse. I don't see how you reconcile such conclusions without acknowleging how much of this subjective opinion. Usually what "this rules set is objective piss poor" boils down to people objecting loudly that half large chunks of the gaming community don't share their preferences.

I appreciate you have strong opinions on systems and that is good for the hobby. It is just that these claims that "my opinions are objectively better than yours" come off as so dismissive of other peoples' preferences and they only lead to more flame wars. I got into some of this on my blog last year, where I (as a person who does tend to prefer streamined and unified design) look at some of the advantagrs of non-unified mechanics (here: The Bedrock Blog: Unified Mechanics). There is room for more than one approach to game design. The last thing I want to see in the hobby is a homogenized philosophy of design (in my opinion that leads to piss poor products in any medium), a one-true-wayism that says games that do x are objectively good but games that do y are objectively bad.

 

[Hussar]

I do think 3E is closer to 2E than 4E is to 3E, but it definitely produces a different experience than earlier editions. The first thing i did with 3E was run a Ravenloft campaign (there was even a robust d20 ravenloft line). It never felt the same asmy 2E ravenloft games (but i continued to play it). For my homebrew 3E worked great, but my ravenloft campaigns (and i ran many for d20) continued to feel off. Just last year i ran a 2E Ravenloft and it was just like i remembered. Totally different experience. Can't put my finger on the difference though.

Sorry, BRG, gonna pick on you for this, but, I've seen a few people put forth this idea.

The changes between AD&D (even late era 2e) and 3e are comprehensive to say the least. Let's start a list.

1. AD&D balanced classes by having different XP advancement rates. 3e balanced classes from the outset. (or at least tried).

2. AD&D used a saving throw system that is entirely different than 3e. They aren't even close to comparable. To the point where Giant In the Playground Games even parodies it.

3. AD&D restricts class/race combinations to varying degrees. 3e removes all restrictions and completely reworks the multiclassing mechanics from the ground up.

4. 2e has kits. 3e has prestige classes. Again, entirely different concepts and mechanics.

5. Weapon mechanics. AD&D uses weapon vs armor mechanics, variable intiative, initiative ranges from either d6 or d10 vs d20. Differing weapon damage vs different sized creatures vs baseline damage. Characters in AD&D must choose from a limited list based on class how many different kinds weapons they can use vs 3e's weapon proficiencies are baked into the classes.

6. The basic time measurements are entirely different - 1 minute rounds vs 6 seconds. Casting times for spells are entirely reworked.

7. AD&D magic item creation rules were mostly left to the DM to decide. 3e codifies magic item creation, placing the ability to craft magic items squarely in the hands of the players.

8. Virtually every single spell is reworked to a greater or lesser degree.

-------

Y'know what? I'm going to stop there. It would probably be easier to list the things that DIDN'T change from AD&D to 3e.

 

[Umbran]

The idea that a good RPG is subjective, so we shouldn't bother trying to change anything, is how we get piss poor rules sets.

The idea that it is not subjective is how we get edition wars.

You can look at things and say, "that's not as good as it can be, and here's how", because you have defined what "good" is for that facet. Do you want to claim that the process of defining "good" is not subjective? That what is good for you is good for everyone else, too, and they just haven't realized it yet?

Each game is designed to produce some particular experience in play. Even the "generic" systems have a "feel" to them. There is, simply put, a design goal, stated or not. Now, we could say that any particular element, or group of elements, is "good" if it meets or assists the design goal. But, whether that goal is itself worthwhile is subjective.

I will analogize: The movie "Sin City", was, in a technical sense, "good". There was craftsmanship in that production, on all levels - writing, acting, effects, everything. It set out to have a particular effect on the viewer, and it achieved that goal. No question. The skill of everyone involved is evident.

However, I still question whether I'd prefer to have stomach flu rather than watch it again. The place that movie went was not a place I wanted to be. I think my life is a little *worse* for having seen that movie. So, for me, technical values be darned, I don't call it a, "good movie". I have friends who loved it, though. I don't think less of them, because they aren't me, and have different needs and wants than I do. The world would be a pretty darned boring place if everyone liked the same things I do. I am happy that there's stuff out there for them. But don't expect me to like it.

That's the issue at hand. Technically successful is not equivalent to "good".

 

[Hussar]

If the underlying math is off or the design doesn't meet the design goals, sure you have some ojbective measures of bad design. But I really do think more of this is subjective than anything else. You might find AD&D initiative bad, but plenty of others don't (there is a legitimate argument to be made for the value of how different mechanics feel and in my experience with 2E, the switch to a different die and roll under achieves a different feel). So why should we embrace your opinion on the matter as being more objective? Some people believe 4E is obhectively better than 3E, an equal number appear to feel it is objectively worse. I don't see how you reconcile such conclusions without acknowleging how much of this subjective opinion. Usually what "this rules set is objective piss poor" boils down to people objecting loudly that half large chunks of the gaming community don't share their preferences.

I appreciate you have strong opinions on systems and that is good for the hobby. It is just that these claims that "my opinions are objectively better than yours" come off as so dismissive of other peoples' preferences and they only lead to more flame wars. I got into some of this on my blog last year, where I (as a person who does tend to prefer streamined and unified design) look at some of the advantagrs of non-unified mechanics (here: The Bedrock Blog: Unified Mechanics). There is room for more than one approach to game design. The last thing I want to see in the hobby is a homogenized philosophy of design (in my opinion that leads to piss poor products in any medium), a one-true-wayism that says games that do x are objectively good but games that do y are objectively bad.

Yeah, I can get behind most of that.

But, as far as 1e initiative rules go, I'm going to stand by that one. Any mechanic that needs a 20 page ADDICT document to explain is BAD mechanic. If you cannot explain the initiative rules for your game in under a paragraph, that's a bad mechanic.

So, yeah, I'd say that one is objective.

Sure, there's lots of shades of grey. I never said there wasn't. I was responding to Variant's idea that it's all just subjective, so, anything is fine so long as one person likes it. That's nonsense.

We have more than enough game design experience floating around to know that some ideas work better than others. Not that the ideas that don't work as well are necessarily bad. Just not as good. Trying to balance mechanical elements with campaign specific material generally doesn't work as well as balancing mechanical elements with other mechanical elements.

So, if we're going to try to balance elements, using campaign specific material in a broad based game like D&D is probably not going to work very well. Thus, one mechanic is reasonably better than another.

If one mechanic is better suited to a broader number of applications than another mechanic; of if a mechanic is more flexible than another mechanic, then that mechanic is objectively better designed. It's more robust.

We can also judge mechanics based on elegance as well. Does it do what it's supposed to do in a number of steps that doesn't grind the game to a halt? Can we achieve the same or at least similar results with a faster mechanic?

Weigh the pros and cons of mechanics as objectively as possible. "Because I like it" is never a good enough reason for any mechanic for use on any other table than mine.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sorry, BRG, gonna pick on you for this, but, I've seen a few people put forth this idea.

The changes between AD&D (even late era 2e) and 3e are comprehensive to say the least. Let's start a list.

Did you read my whole post? Because i never said it wasn't different (in fact i stated i couldn't run ravenloft the same in 3e as 2e. I just felt 3e was closer to 2e than 4e was to 3e. I don't dispute most of your list either.

Edit: just to add to this, i do believe 2e and 3e are strikingly different games (and you list off some of the major reasons). When I say I couldn't utnmy finger on the reasonmy ravenloft 3e and 2e were so different, i meant i couldn't isolate the one thing all these differences seemed to share (for example because 3e was not realistic enough too realistic, complicated or not complicated enought, etc). Superficially, there was a lot in common between the editions. And the broad elements remain largely the same. The spells maybe different but they are all mostly there, the spell system is largley the same (which some key differences though once you get past the broad strokes), classes are all familiar, as are the races, etc. But yes some signiificsnt differences that make for very different play (the way skills and NwP work are very different, particularly because thief abilities are tied to the class in 2e and not the nwp/skill system).

 

[Piratecat]

I can objectively look at Spawn of Fashan and say, "Yup, that's a bad game".

*blink* What? Spawn of Fashan, bad? Fie, sir! Fie! We duel at dawn in the fields of Boosboodle!

One thing I have learned as a game designer: there are mechanics that are objectively bad. Choices that add complexity or confusion without adding fun are a good place to start. I love the negative ACs of 1e due to nostalgia, but I'm not going to defend that as better design than positive ACs; nor am I even going to try and defend the 1e initiative and surprise system.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What counts as a fundamental change obviously is contentious. But I think 3E changed quite a few things:

*fighters went from having good saves and a high degree of versatility in both build and play (potentially athletic, charismatic, knowledgeable etc) to having generally bad saves and a low degree of versatility (2 skill points per level with a fairly narrow class list);

*magic attack rules were changed, so that as spellcasters gained levels it tended to become easier, rather than harder, to hit comparable HD monsters with their spells.

*monster build rules changed fundamentally - both by basing them around PC stats, and by introducing the idea of "natural armour";

*as a result of changes to monsters, druids became supercharged (because of their pets and their wildshape);

*as a result of changes to monsters, the relative mechanical threat posed by high HD monsters compared to low HD monster became greatly increased;

*and many other things that I'm sure those who are more familiar with 3E than me could describe.

Whether these are fundamental changes I'll leave for others to judge. They seem fairly different to me.

As much as I liked to agree with you, and your points are all valid, somehow when I began playing 3.0 I didn´t feel a great difference. It was quite a bit later, in higher levels that you noticed a big change... the similarities were glaring, the differences rather subtle.
And with 4e, the changes were more apparent, and the similarities more subtle.

I wish 5e will be different and streamlined, but they should return to the old jargon (even though a lot of 4e´s innovations could be kept and improved upon)

e.g.: why using the name saving throw for a completely different mechanic?