D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Zardnaar]

Except people like blowing stuff up.

No one's forcing you to use those spells.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That doesn't make combat characters better than support. Also not a general truth.

Perhaps not; but it is a general truism in game design that, unless you specifically go out of your way to make support very enjoyable or very powerful (the two are not the same), people will prefer to play direct-action roles, even if they would otherwise like playing supportive roles.

This, too, is an area where MMO design gives us really useful data. It is essentially always the case that "DPS" characters outnumber non-DPS characters by a substantial margin. Even in games which allow players to play every role and flexibly move between them, like FFXIV, it is still nearly always the case that damage-focused players outweigh defense- or support-focused characters. To put this in perspective, FFXIV has "duty roulettes" which allow the player to sign up for being randomly assigned to duties (dungeons, raids, etc.) that they have access to. These give various rewards, and those rewards are meaningfully increased if the player chooses to play whatever role was recently "in need". So, for example, if the last time the system checked, healers weren't common enough for a particular roulette type, then players who queue as healers will get various small but meaningful bonuses.

Having played for many years, I can tell you that the data clearly supports a ratio of something like 14 of tank:healer:damage, because those which have a lower ratio of damage-dealers essentially never have DPS as the role "in need" (e.g. FFXIV dungeons require 1 tank, 1 healer, 2 DPS, and seeing dungeon roulettes with DPS in need is incredibly rare), while those with a higher ratio of 15 frequently do end up having DPS in need even when no other roulette does.

My point in bringing up these specific numbers from a specific game is not to say that D&D absolutely has this exact precise setup. It's simply to show that, in the absence of design specifically made to make supportive or defensive roles compelling, people default to blowing things up. Doesn't matter if good tanking or good healing are incredibly valuable; people prefer being the ones who actively conclude situations, not the ones who support others ending situations, unless you make support genuinely engaging and exciting in and of itself.

That, in particular, is one of the greatest benefits of 4e's roles. By having classes designed for roles, we can actually do the testing required to be sure that fulfilling that role as that class is, in and of itself, an enjoyable gameplay experience, in addition to the other components of the experience. Now, being an enjoyable gameplay experience absolutely is not the only thing that matters for TTRPG class design--far from it!--but I think we can lay a number of design flaws in both 5.0 and 5.5e at the feet of neglecting that element. Because...like...I genuinely can't think of any other reason that the Berserker Frenzy => Exhaustion mechanic from 5.0 would ever have survived. Because it sucked. It was really actively anti-fun to play. It was very thematic, someone burning their candle at both ends to eke out as much damage as possible. And, in general, high thematic rigor is extremely important! But it's pretty clearly an example of putting thematic rigor ahead of...y'know...fun (or even functional...) gameplay.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No one's forcing you to use those spells.

Irrelevant.

Player psychology is doing so.

Are we now saying that the players should adjust to the game's design, regardless of their personal feelings? Is that actually an argument you want to make? I suspect it isn't, that's why I'm asking.

 

[Scribe]

Are we now saying that the players should adjust to the game's design, regardless of their personal feelings?

At a certain level, yes. Players should adjust to the game, or find a different one.

 

[Zardnaar]

Irrelevant.

Player psychology is doing so.

Are we now saying that the players should adjust to the game's design, regardless of their personal feelings? Is that actually an argument you want to make? I suspect it isn't, that's why I'm asking.

Up to a point. Ultimately don't like it don't play or run your own game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

At a certain level, yes. Players should adjust to the game, or find a different one.

So what does that make of a huge, huge swathe of both complaints levied at, I dunno, some particular version of some popular game out there, AND at the explicit design policy that went into the sequel?

Because if that's true, then the entire foundation upon which 5e was built is inherently suspect.

 

[AnotherGuy]

So designers do whatever and ignore player psychology...how did @Zardnaar and @Scribe feel about 4e...?

 

[AnotherGuy]

It is better for several reasons.

Not being levels means, as I've said already, we completely and utterly cut out the "but that's not FIRST, you start at FIRST because that's what FIRST means, why would you ever start anywhere other than FIRST". And yes, while this is not the majority opinion, my own thread has literally shown that that IS what some people think. Real live people.

Secondly, and far more important in the grand scheme, not being hard coded fixed sequences of completely nailed down effects means the structure is much more customizable for each interest. Someone wanting "gentle curve guiding players into their first character" can make sure that the characters have near/full defenses as if they were already competent, survivable 1st level characters, without the bells and whistles chosen. Someone wanting a gritty, hardcore experience can strip out nearly everything and still have a functional character. Someone wanting the characters to grow naturally can set a steady pace from low but meaningful starting choices. Etc.

The flexibility that comes from having a system that isn't tied to a fixed progression, and instead allows the GM to set the curve and the content, is literally the key point that makes it functional for multiple groups. Trying to shove every priority, every style, into one singular fixed structure that has to be one size fits all? That literally won't ever work. This can, because it can be customized to each group.

And those who don't want to bother never even need to look at it.

I'm struggling to envision this, do you have an idea/example that elaborates some of your thought process?

 

[Zardnaar]

So designers do whatever and ignore player psychology...how did @Zardnaar and @Scribe feel about 4e...?

Played 2E, 3.5, Pathfinder, SWSE and clones instead.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So what does that make of a huge, huge swathe of both complaints levied at, I dunno, some particular version of some popular game out there, AND at the explicit design policy that went into the sequel?

Because if that's true, then the entire foundation upon which 5e was built is inherently suspect.

Plenty of people chose option B regarding that particular version of a popular game. Certainly a valid choice, and it makes sense that the producers of said game would take that into account when they try again.