Do you really want dials and options?

[DEFCON 1]

Sure they will. So the question is, do those things have sufficiently broad-based appeal to make it worth including them despite the annoyance? In some cases the answer is yes; in others, no.

Should the PHB contain rules for laser rifles and spaceships? If not, why not? After all, such things are a crucial element of D&D's very first campaign world. Long before dragonborn were a gleam in Heinsoo's eye, Dave Arneson was running Blackmoor.

But now what happens if you find out that dragonborn actually DO have sufficient broad-based appeal? That they deserve to be in the next first PH (moreso than saying halflings)? Are you now going to accept them as a part of the next D&D experience?

Because that's my point. Too many times I think we cling to all those things we don't like, to our own detriment. If we all just accept that the game (in whatever iteration we are playing it) is going to bother us in some way and at some point... we can get past it. And just play. Instead, it seems like too much headspace is wasted just getting annoyed at stuff so that it's impossible to actually enjoy it.

 

[Greg K]

Yes, I want dials and options provided the options and dials. As someone else wrote, ideally, I would prefer a 5e written exactly to what I want. It is not going to happen (or highly unlikely to do so). It has not happened since I discovered games other than TSR games and thought this specific element or idea would be great if implemented in D&D. Since that time, I have always hacked the game (except for 4e which I skipped),

2e: I implemented various things from the Complete Books, PO: Combats and Tactics, PO: Spells and Magic

3e: I ignored most WOTC supplements. I incorporated various options from both the DMG and Unearthed Arcana. I also used the urban skill swap from Cityscape's web enhancement, took a few of the class variants from other products and incorporated various third party supplements as part of "my" core.

4e:As stated above, I skipped it. There were somethings I felt were improvements and would have loved brought into something closer ot 3e. However, overall, mechanically, it was not what I wanted (a continuation of a trend with WOTC's 3e supplements). For myself, it was too much work to make the changes that I wanted and the optional material for the changes I wanted were not there from third parties or WOTC. I had been clamoring for a 4e Unearthed Arcana from day one- listing what I had wanted covered.


So, yes, i would like dials and options provided I don't have to buy several supplements to tailor the game to, mechanically, do what I want. This is the only chance that they have to lure me away from Savage Worlds and True20.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I would add that changing the dial does something important.

To go with your background/etc. example, if you have 5 settings on that dial, that's probably too many to make the actual choice meaningful. When I turn a knob I should notice.

Definitely agree. It's possible for certain dials to have maybe as many as 6 or 7 settings. If it has only 2, then it isn't really a dial and should not be presented that way. So practically speaking, that means 3-5 settings as the usual range, but favoring the lower end on average.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But now what happens if you find out that dragonborn actually DO have sufficient broad-based appeal? That they deserve to be in the next first PH (moreso than saying halflings)? Are you now going to accept them as a part of the next D&D experience?

Why the nine hells would they do that?

If the idea is to publish an expandable skeleton in the first PH, the easiest way to do that is probably to say: "There are four classes (fighter, mage, thief, cleric). There is one race (humans). This is the basic D&D skeleton. Here are some options: Halflings. Elves. Dwarves. Here are some more options: Druids. Rangers. Paladins. Here are some additional options: Dragonborn. Warlocks. Ninjas. Shadar-kai."

Now, that could change -- they could do ONE class, or they could do, like 3-5 races, too. Options that say: "These are turned on, but here's what happens if you turn them off."

Adding additional races and classes seems like an easy peasy dial to turn, one that we've been turning since OD&D, one that they can safely set to a low value, and let us turn it up, swap it around, or change its layout for our own campaigns.

I don't know why they'd risk alienating folks all over again by saying "DRAGONBORN ARE NOW FOR EVERYONE."

I mean, I know they did that in 4e, but still...

Where I think the dial is going to be iffy is stuff like, "how do we define 'fighter,' or 'halfling,'" since there are multiple competing mutually exclusive definitions, and people don't want to use things that aren't going to meet their definitions.

If MY halflings are tolkeinesque hobbits with doughty stamina and pipeweed, and YOUR halflings are dreadlocked kender-lite river-rats who skulk in shadows and kill those bigger then them with stabbity sneak attacking death, that's not really a "dial" as it is a completely different concept of what the thing is. If MY fighters are defender-role melee machines with marks and powers, and YOUR fighters are just guys who know how to use a lot of weapons and armor and have a pretty good attack bonus, it's hard to provide one "fighter" that fits both of our preferences.

And by presenting one first, you're weakening the other one by default. If the simplest fighter shows up in the first PH, and the more complex fighter only comes in the Martial Power supplement three months later, even if you like the more complex one better, it's kind of demoted by the nature of not being the "default."

I don't think any of this is insurmountable (subraces! subclasses! OGL!) but I do think that's where they're going to have the biggest problems -- when two or more mutually exclusive definitions are going head-to-head for the same namespace. Because everyone always thinks their version of "elf" is the best, and if you provide anything else as the default version of "elf," it's a controversy.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

On the question of who gets catered to and how much, I want some form of modularity because:

• I want other people to get what they want. If they do, they are happier, and likely to write something that I might like, even if it wasn't on my radar initially.
• I like to change the game myself from campaign to campaign. If you make the perfect game for me for campaign X, it probably won't be for campaign Y.

However, I don't want a framework like GURPS or Hero System, because:

• The market has more or less proven that most people aren't comfortable with that--they want something they can play out of the box, even if they customize it some now or later.
• No one believes a game can be all things to all people, but framework games have proven to me that you can't even have a game that is all things to one person. There are generic systems, but no truly "universal" ones.

Modularity done right does not mean trying to do everything. Rather, it means that if there are popular choices that are somewhat incompatible with each other, you let people pick. That you can't play RuneQuest or Ars Magica or GURPS Fantasy or Burning Wheel or any number of other such perfectly fine games with an edition of D&D is not really a valid critique of D&D. (If you have elements of those games well adapted to D&D, no problem. But you don't replicate the experience entirely.) And some people twisted even the original D&D so out of its intended purpose that they really should move onto another game that does what they want better, and they can't really be catered to. Of course the lines are somewhat blurry on the edges, too. However, given all that, there are still things you ought to be able to do easily with D&D, if you are so inclined.

 

[Dausuul]

But now what happens if you find out that dragonborn actually DO have sufficient broad-based appeal? That they deserve to be in the next first PH (moreso than saying halflings)? Are you now going to accept them as a part of the next D&D experience?

*shrug* I'll accept them as something that's going to be in the PHB whether I like it or not. I don't like halflings and I'm not real fond of elves or dwarves either. I don't like Vancian casting. I detest pretty much all art I've ever seen by Wayne Reynolds. But I recognize that a lot of people love these things, so the Player's Handbook is going to have them.

If WotC's market research shows the same is true of dragonborn, so be it. From what I gather, however, their research indicates the vast majority of players go for human, elf, dwarf, or halfling--the classic Tolkien four.

Because that's my point. Too many times I think we cling to all those things we don't like, to our own detriment. If we all just accept that the game (in whatever iteration we are playing it) is going to bother us in some way and at some point... we can get past it. And just play.

*looks around* Huh. No other players. No dice. No books. Looks like I can't "just play" right this minute. So instead I'll spend some time thinking and talking about what might make the game better for me, so that next time I can "just play," it might be more fun.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Yes dials and options, as long as the starting point is very simple and pure DnD (starting at Basic Set from BECMI level I guess). Fantasy Craft is my favourite crunchy d20 system and it is a great toolset... able to do all sorts of games. However the starting level is very much 3E level of complexity.
And I love to have the option for things I don't like, although there is not much I hate and will play anything...anything please as there are no groups here!
Maybe I am not target audience for this question, those that hate (e.g.) Vancian so much they won't play a game with it in even if only an option. Hopefully there aren't that many type of gamers around!

 

[DEFCON 1]

So instead I'll spend some time thinking and talking about what might make the game better for me, so that next time I can "just play," it might be more fun.

And thus, if you're going to spend some time thinking about the game and what will make it better... you're not really having to "go out of your way to exclude them" (tieflings and dragonborn) like you said above, are you? You're already making choices on what you want to use, so it shouldn't matter if they are in the first PHB or not.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Sure, everyone seems supportive of dials and options on the surface, but the underlying, unstated sentiment seems to be, "I am in favor of including an option I want."

However, experience from the last few years seems to suggest that including desired options is only half the story. The other half is excluding options that are not wanted.

That's pretty much what Mike and Monte were promising in their columns last year: A very simple game with pretty much everything as bolt-on add-ons. I would have to imagine the Points of Light setting races and maybe classes would be in a book (or books) all their own, letting people who want that flavor get it, while not forcing it on anyone else.

If you can get the play experience you want, would it bug you that other people can adjust the game to get different play experiences that you specifically would not like?

No. It also doesn't bother me that people like different music than I do, drive different cars than I do, or watch television shows that I think are stupid.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The only time I really don't like an option being included is when its presence excludes something else that I wanted instead. And I don't mean by this simple things like page count or limited development time, either. You'll always get some A, B, and C when you would have preferred X, Y, and Z--but that's just the way things go.

No, what is annoying is when a particular choice gets embedded into the game so that it can't be removed or replaced. For a silly example, take the early cleric class. He casts those divine spells, wears heavy armor, uses maces, turns undead, and is basically an early version of the "divine paladin" concept, shoehorned into the rules. Meanwhile, the "magic user" has to be excluded from healing and cures, because isn't he already doing enough? So if you have this idea of a "wise man" in robes with knowledge of plants and healing, you are out of luck. Then they add the druid, but to fit those established niches, they also give the druid shapechanging too. You are still out of luck.

It took 4 full editions and however you want to count them several partial editions and extensions to develop "class roles" enough to work around that particular problem. Sometimes, it isn't just what gets included, but how you do it, that matters.