D&D 5E Design Philosophy of 5e

[Wolfskin]

I, for one, welcome the design philosophy of the new edition.

I quit DnD six years ago because I just wasn't getting any fun out of it, so I'd like to see a return to simpler and "human-centric" rules- if I have to make a judgement call about a rule, so be it, it wouldn't be the first time I do it.

5e seems so far like a good edition for me to make a comeback, and I'll be running the Starter Set in a local con on July the 20th. Hopefully, I'll get new players and run a full-length DnD campaign for the first time since AD&D 2E.

PS: also, I'm new here, hello everybody

 

[Shaangor]

That's good, but some questions should be decided by the narrative (i.e. you the DM).

"Can I take multiple short rests?" is a question that should have different answers depending on whether there is a bugbear listening in the next room or not. The rules can't tell you that; YOU decide.

I agree. Short rest is an action the players can take that has a defined result, but that doesn't mean it succeeds. There are plenty of situations where they won't get that rest even though they tried, but what matters to them is they know what the result potential of the short rest is. That's much different from a spell that says "the monster follows a one-word command to its best ability" because that basically means anything. A dumb creature might not do anything while much smarter one might not do what the player intended. It's not about whether the players trust the DM to roleplay the creature correctly, just that the unknown range of potential outcomes is far too great for it to be useful to them. Even though the command spell can make a creature waste its turn to move its speed, and more, they would take a spell that says "the monster uses its next turn to move up to its speed away from you" over command.

I think it simply comes down to play style. Those that enjoy an open, sandbox type game like the fuzzy rules because they could allow for the things they want to happen. My group definitely has a more "gamist" approach. They want to know the potential mechanics of their actions so they can make informed decisions.

 

[I'm A Banana]

However, if the designers think a style of play is boring and they have that supposition backed up by player feedback, I'm okay with them calling it boring. It helps if I agree, certainly. But I like tracking spell components, and they think that's boring, too. That's fine. It probably is.

I think it's troubling when there's a failure to recognize the psychology behind WHY people choose to play the game in these different ways, when instead the reaction is a dismissal. Like, there's a VALUE to tracking spell components -- it serves a purpose. That value may be more or less valuable than the value of getting rid of that assumption for certain target groups, but the designers should dang well realize that they are getting rid of something that has a constructive point when they get rid of it.

Even if only 1% of your audience tracked spell components, the designers should realize WHY they find that a useful addition to their games, and not just write it off as "oh, that's boring."

I disagree with your point that Mearls was referencing rules (I almost brought up which rules) that don't work as intended. My take from what he said was, /shrug "working as intended". If people want to play that way they may, we aren't going to stop them. That seems different from saying, "magic missile is awesome when we didn't want it to be? Oh well."

/shrug "If people are only going to use the magic missile spell, it's boring, but we aren't going to stop them."

To me, it seems pretty clear that the rule mearls referenced wasn't intended to be used in the way discussed, but that they could be, and there is incentive for them to be (in certain circumstances). Similarly, MM > FB would be unintentional, and there would be an incentive for that (even though in certain circumstances FB might still be used, or MM might be used less), and if the reaction was as above, I'd be making pretty much the same point.

I'm not saying that any perceived problems shouldn't be brought up. They should. Then the WotC people can comment on the problems, and a discussion about their intentions can lead to answers. If they find that their intentions are not reflected well in the rules, then they can alter them.

That's really my main point, so I think we're in broad agreement. I just noticed a lot of reactions to pointing out a potential problem falling into the camp of "If you think it's a problem, the problem is YOU," starting with Mearls's initial reaction. And I find that position...problematic, if one is serious about it.

However, this bypasses my main point. Which is that if a player wants a certain playstyle, bypassing a perfectly good interpretation to play with one that is not preferable to them makes little to no sense. But, that happens all the time!

I think your Player 1 would be better served saying "OK, we'll change it here, but this rule should be changed! I mean, officially! Because what if we're not the only people with this problem?" which is a more constructive outcome there. And then come discuss it on ENWorld! Though some certainly get stuck in the loop of simply saying it's bad and we should feel bad.

I'm saying, to me, it sounded normal, and that's why I never noticed it. Never said it was fact or truth. Common sense is not so common.

Doesn't seem to matter how often I makes sure my statements are subjective and state they only the opinion of myself, someone tries to get their nose out of joint over it because internets.

Sure, but can we examine why you think that it's "normal" and why the designers might share that bias and what blind spots those biases can create? That's the meat of that convo. It's not about taking offense to take offense, but about seeing how the process broke down and what might be improved next time to better take this into account.

Except in this case they specifically said that it was not their intention for players to use short rests this way. We CAN tell. Consider it a "sidebar" that you may ignore at your leisure (as they also specifically say you may if you wish, even if that ain't their cuppa).

The implied their intention 45 minutes into a 1 hour YouTube video. They should state it in the rules they're writing. They certainly didn't do that, it would seem.

 

[Boarstorm]

... aaaaand this thread has been hijacked. It was an interesting discussion for a few pages, but here we are again with the same tired argument.

Edit: Thanks, Kamikaze. I understand that argument is an important one to you and I don't mean to belittle it. Hell, on the whole I think I agree with it. I'd just hate to have to see a repeat of the damage-on-a-miss subforum debacle.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Stay on target, folks! This thread isn't about Short Rests, it's about overall design philosophy!

 

[Halivar]

Stay on target, folks! This thread isn't about Short Rests, it's about overall design philosophy!

FWIW, I think we're on track; short rests in this case are just an example, or proxy for the greater argument of how granular the rules should be.

 

[Shaangor]

Stay on target, folks! This thread isn't about Short Rests, it's about overall design philosophy!

My apologies, I wasn't meaning to bring up the short rest argument specifically. I was trying to point out my preferred design philosophy is crunch separated from fluff, and explicit, precise rules over natural language, interpreted ones.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I think it's troubling when there's a failure to recognize the psychology behind WHY people choose to play the game in these different ways, when instead the reaction is a dismissal. Like, there's a VALUE to tracking spell components -- it serves a purpose. That value may be more or less valuable than the value of getting rid of that assumption for certain target groups, but the designers should dang well realize that they are getting rid of something that has a constructive point when they get rid of it.

Even if only 1% of your audience tracked spell components, the designers should realize WHY they find that a useful addition to their games, and not just write it off as "oh, that's boring."

Like you said, I don't think that Mearls' response in the moment is necessarily indicative of this. And of course they should know why people like various options. And then make spell components core. Or else.

To me, it seems pretty clear that the rule mearls referenced wasn't intended to be used in the way discussed, but that they could be, and there is incentive for them to be (in certain circumstances).

Agreed.

I just noticed a lot of reactions to pointing out a potential problem falling into the camp of "If you think it's a problem, the problem is YOU," starting with Mearls's initial reaction. And I find that position...problematic, if one is serious about it.

Oh man, I agree. If you've seen me put things that way, let me know, so I can edit those posts. Because playstyle choices I disagree with and find boring say nothing about the people who choose them. Other than I might find the way they play boring, I suppose.

Though some certainly get stuck in the loop of simply saying it's bad and we should feel bad.

And... I think you might be getting pushback from some because of some other people who are stuck in that loop being very vocal and abrasive about the whole thing.

Sure, but can we examine why you think that it's "normal" and why the designers might share that bias and what blind spots those biases can create? That's the meat of that convo. It's not about taking offense to take offense, but about seeing how the process broke down and what might be improved next time to better take this into account.

Hopefully, and it seems like this is the case, the designers are relying on survey data to check their blind spots. They appear to be not just looking for majority rule. They appear to be looking for clusters of players and play-styles so they can build options for them. (From my interpretation of the things I've seen and read).

Edit: and thanks KM.

Thaumaturge.

 

[jrowland]

What seems to be missing here is the fact that things like "proper place" and "common sense" are not empirical facts or objective truths. They are, at best, things that you've LEARNED work well for a great table experience for the people you've played around. That's being a good DM. That is compensating for the flaws in the rules. That's not a playstyle difference. That's what Obryn mentioned as "fixing" the game.

What seems to be missing here is the fact that a highly codified game, one that is empirical with objective truths allows for Bad DMS. Bad DMs do not LEARN what works well for a great table experience for the people they have played around. They do not become good DMs as the rules do all the work for them. That is compensating for the flaws in the DM.

See what I did there?

It comes down to a difference of opinion, really. I want more good DMs. IMHO, I think the game needs more good DMs to grow and be successful. I don't see how overly codified rule sets create more good DMs. You could argue that to master the rule set as a DM you have to be Good, but that seems more a barrier to entry. I think the 5E is doing the right thing. Yes, there will be MORE bad DMs, but the rule set is flexible, forgiving, and those DMs will get better. They must, or they simply won't be DMs anymore when nobody shows up for their game. The difference in opinion is where you put the onus: On the DM (improve your game to maximize your table-fun) or the developers (improve the game to maximize every table-fun).

I think Monte Cooks comment goes to the the heart of it: Developers just aren't interested in creating the mythical one-game-to-rule-them-all where everyone is satisfied. Here's the bare bones, here are some options we think are popular, here are some guidelines to tweak the game to suit certain popular playstyles. Have Fun! That seems a great approach.

So count me on the side of the flexible, less rules is more side of the opinion. ie "human-centric"

IMO

 

[BoldItalic]

FWIW, I think we're on track; short rests in this case are just an example, or proxy for the greater argument of how granular the rules should be.

Granularity. Le mot juste. On a scale of 1 to 10, how granular do people think the 5e rules are, and how granular would you each prefer it to be ?