D&D 5E D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.

[Ruin Explorer]

Yelling at the clouds - or more specifically - yelling on forums isn't going to change the game.

Whilst I mostly agree with your post, I find discussing stuff on messageboards massively sharpens up my ideas about what's actually wrong. I feel like, even for a relatively intelligent (at least not outright thick) person with a huge amount of RPG experience and mechanical knowledge like me, without discussing it with others, it's very hard to really reliably get right what is wrong, you know what I mean?

Like, often my or other people's ideas about what's wrong with a system are superficial or miss the point, and arguing it can often reveal the real issue.

That's why I find hand-wave-y stuff like "just completely ignore the rules and make up incompatible ones" or "go play another game, loser!" to be extremely unhelpful. What I want is a counter-argument that actually flows from how the game works, and often I get that, and that's actually useful. Hell sometimes a system seems bad and it isn't, and the counter-argument can show that.

Once you actually know what's wrong, then it's good to ask for change. Speaking very broadly here, but outside of climate change (where solutions are clear but ignored), a lot of the world's issues, large and small, stem from people knowing something is wrong, but being unwilling or unable to look at exactly what/why those things are wrong often because looking at the real underlying problem is unpopular. At least with RPGs there's a decent avenue to work on that.

I know that with 1D&D I won't be asking for the same things I'd have been asking for say, 5 years ago, and a lot of that is because I understand 5E's issues much, much better now, thanks in large part to people on this board (including you!), both arguing with me and pointing out when I actually have a point.

 

[Retreater]

I do not want D&D to go in this as a general direction at all. As a special ability, perhaps for fighters only, because their understanding of combat is just that nuanced and complete it would be great however.

This doesn't have to be a general direction. My suggestion was for a specific (albeit theoretical) player who is not happy with a Str- or Dex-Based fighter who also doesn't want to play a different class or subclass.
My general suggestion is to work with your players and compromise to give them the best experience you can. Take the best ideas from every game you play - if you want to add weapon qualities or combat maneuvers, do it.

 

[ersatzphil]

That's because D&D has always emphasized one path to being good at something. Let's say you want to be the master of, oh, I don't know, climbing. You go "aha, obviously Dexterity is the most important thing here!"

But if your DM happens to be a free climber, and they say "well actually, you need Strength to be a good climber", you're going to feel put out.

I mean, this is real game development territory, and pokes at my biggest problem with 5e. You're 100% correct that the game is a model of a 'lived world', and a necessarily simplified one - as someone with a passing interest in archery, the idea that attacking with a longbow doesn't involve your strength is wild to me. However, all ranged attacks relying on your dexterity 'feels right' to me, and makes for a more 'gamey' game - forcing a tradeoff between melee and ranged combat skill.

I guess the real question is, 'how does one model being good at something?' My dissatisfaction with 5e is that the answer is so often autosuccess / 'because you cast a spell'. Want to be good at living off the land? Take the 'outlander' background and you can automatically find food for you and your companions. Be a druid and cast goodberry. At least to me, that doesn't feel like I'm good at surviving in the wild, it feels like I don't need to play that part of the game anymore in a handwave-y sort of way.

I dunno. I'm not sure I'm doing a good job of articulating my argument, but I think you've hit on a pretty fundamental topic.

 

[Retreater]

That's why I find hand-wave-y stuff like "just completely ignore the rules and make up incompatible ones" or "go play another game, loser!" to be extremely unhelpful.

I hope you haven't interpreted any of my ideas as calling you a "loser." If so, that wasn't my intent at all.
Normally my posts on here are complaining and pessimistic about the future of the hobby - so much that I've gotten "red text" about them.
I'm consciously making an effort to be more positive and to look for realistic solutions in all aspects of my life. I apologize if I'm doing a bad job at that - I'm still learning.
I don't think a Charisma-based fighter is any more incompatible than a fighter based on Dexterity. In fact, Dexterity is a far more powerful ability score than Charisma, since it's tied to common Dex saves, skills like Stealth and Acrobatics, etc. Having a high Charisma opposed to Strength or Dexterity is already a penalty (in my mind).

 

[Laurefindel]

Same but I think part of the problem is it's a contradiction. The game wildly out of its way to hard-link certain stats and skills. Aren't there even a couple of subclass features which allow you to use a skill with a non-standard stat?

They should have never done that. They should from the start said it's stat mod + skill prof, ask you DM which combo to run, here are the defaults. But was never the approach and the optional approach in the DMG was clearly not seriously considered.

Yeah, I wish they'd occasionally asked for something like "make a Strength (Athletics or Performance) check" (or whatever combination works for the situation). I can understand that the ability itself is hardwired in characters abilities and published adventures, but odd (or not-standard?) combinations with skills could have been encouraged or at least demonstrated. Some skills like Acrobatics (which could have existed simply as a Dexterity-Athletics pairing) almost discourage unconventional pairing of ability-skill.

Then perhaps we'd see something else than the five typical checks...

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, I wish they'd occasionally asked for something like "make a Strength (Athletics or Performance) check" (or whatever combination works for the situation). I can understand that the ability itself is hardwired in characters abilities and published adventures, but odd (or not-standard?) combinations with skills could have been encouraged or at least demonstrated. Some skills like Acrobatics (which could have existed simply as a Dexterity-Athletics pairing) almost discourage unconventional pairing of ability-skill.

Then perhaps we'd see something else than the five typical checks...

I occasionally ask for alternatives, but usually describe it as "you can". For example in my last game I asked for a performance check and told the player they could use wisdom if they wanted. That way it's not a performance/wisdom check, it just gives them the option to choose. This is also my attempt to let them know they can volunteer the info if they want.

I understand why they did the whole [ability] / [proficiency] thing, but I think it does more harm than good. If I always think dexterity/acrobatics it seems like people are less likely to ask if they can analyze the situation quickly to do an intelligence/acrobatics check instead. The first thing you ask for is generally what people focus on, not the qualifier. That, and I still think "give me a strength check adding your athletics proficiency modifier" is just too danged clunky - people will start to zone out after they hear "give me a strength check". That, and all the character sheets I've seen or used have the proficiencies listed alphabetically, it's just a lot easier to ask for an investigation check and have them glance at their sheet.

It's one of the things I hope they ask for feedback in one of the upcoming playtests.

 

[Xamnam]

That, and I still think "give me a strength check adding your athletics proficiency modifier" is just too danged clunky - people will start to zone out after they hear "give me a strength check". That, and all the character sheets I've seen or used have the proficiencies listed alphabetically, it's just a lot easier to ask for an investigation check and have them glance at their sheet.

Yep, I actively tried to switch over, used a bunch of different language to say it, and nothing ever felt smooth enough that I didn't trip over something.

Now, what I have tried, to more success, is a character sheet that doesn't have all skills listed, just blank spots to write in what you are proficient in. It does feel like it helped, at least a little, get away from scanning the list to find the "right" option for every problem, and instead encouraged "Well, how can I see my skills being relevant here?"

 

[Mistwell]

I think there are two factors at play here.

One is that satisfied people are generally quiet. I work in customer service, and it's rather uncommon to get a call or an e-mail saying "Thank you for excellent work." When people get in touch with me, it's because something has gone wrong. Forums tend to be the same: a thread about something people like and that isn't controversial isn't going to get very many posts, whereas a thread on fighter complexity, well...

The other is a saying that people complaining are almost always right about something being wrong. They are rarely right about how to solve that problem. For example, say that you get a common complaint that martials, particularly fighters, have little to do outside combat, and that the players want more non-combat abilities in their class. But perhaps the better solution would be a more robust skill system, and changing social/exploration spells to interact more with the skill system instead (note: I'm not trying to put this up for a debate, just using it as an example that perhaps the solution is not what the user/player thinks it should be).

I am not so sure about that second part. If it was common to see people complaining on message boards about X, and then to find survey satisfaction was at 95% with X, it probably was not that the complaints were right. They only used the forum complaints if those complaints also matched with dissatisfaction with the surveys. Then they felt the forum complaints were in the ball park and were useful to begin the diagnosis for what was at issue, which might be a larger issue than the specific forum complaint.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I watched this video a few years ago. It's good stuff. At minimum, it shows the team went into this project with seriousness of purpose, in good faith, striving to craft a game that serves the needs of fans.

 

[Minigiant]

I occasionally ask for alternatives, but usually describe it as "you can". For example in my last game I asked for a performance check and told the player they could use wisdom if they wanted. That way it's not a performance/wisdom check, it just gives them the option to choose. This is also my attempt to let them know they can volunteer the info if they want.

I understand why they did the whole [ability] / [proficiency] thing, but I think it does more harm than good. If I always think dexterity/acrobatics it seems like people are less likely to ask if they can analyze the situation quickly to do an intelligence/acrobatics check instead. The first thing you ask for is generally what people focus on, not the qualifier. That, and I still think "give me a strength check adding your athletics proficiency modifier" is just too danged clunky - people will start to zone out after they hear "give me a strength check". That, and all the character sheets I've seen or used have the proficiencies listed alphabetically, it's just a lot easier to ask for an investigation check and have them glance at their sheet.

It's one of the things I hope they ask for feedback in one of the upcoming playtests.

That's why I've added more skills and advocated adding more skills to D&D. Instead of "Strength check and add your proficiency mod if you have Intimidate", it's "give me a Browbeat check".

But ideas that don't get 90% Satisfaction don't get added.