D&D 5E Does/Should D&D Have the Player's Game Experience as a goal?

[MichaelSomething]

For 5e, I would say no. The whole point of DM empowerment is remove obstacles that get in the DM's way of running the game their way. In a land of no rules, the man with rulings is King!

 

[Hussar]

I've had near TPKs at every level and, no, I don't use any house rules to make things more difficult. I don't have to hack the game to change the difficulty, the DM has infinite dragons. The only optional rule I use is the alternate rest rules, but that's as much for pacing as anything. Not that I need infinite dragons, 3 frost worms (CR 17) against a 19th level party almost did a couple PCs in because I took advantage of their abilities.



As far as a subsystem for intrigue and politics I guess I never wanted one because when you do that it just becomes a mini game. It feels less immersive to me and too predictable if I have "influence points" if it's player facing. If it's not player facing all I have to do as a DM is think about the individuals or organizations involved and how they'd likely react. If I felt I needed such a system, 3PP is right there to fill in the gaps.

It's fine if you want a system that gamifies aspects that D&D doesn't, it doesn't mean I feel like I'm missing anything.

Again. You are insisting on value judgements that aren’t there.

This has never, ever been about value judgements about system. It’s about how transparent those systems are.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think there are two levels to it. The first is at the game/design level. Should a game be designed to deliver a specific player experience, or should it be designed to allow for multiple experiences? Either answer is fine, but then has design implications that matter. For example, if you want to allow for multiple experiences, then you need to design elements that support the different approaches.

The second level is at the group level. In the absence if a specific player experience being put forth by the game itself (or if it’s actively being changed) then the group really should be considering the play experience and how to deliver that experience.

What I think D&D “should do” is be more specific about what they’re doing, and then provide actual rules and guidance to help with that. Currently, I think they try to bill themselves as being able to deliver many different player experiences, but I think they offer minimal rules and guidance about how to deliver these different experiences.

For many folks… most of whom are well versed in RPGs and specifically with editions of D&D… see that as a boon. They don’t mind that D&D has pushed the bulk of this design area to them rather than providing complete design. And that’s fine… I get it.

But for people who haven’t been playing for decades, the anemic attempt is a negative. Add to that that old-timers are the folks who least need advice to specifically be in the game text, and I do think the current approach is a poor one. Instead of reminding a 40 year DM that he’s allowed to make house rules, I think the books should focus on teaching newer DMs how to go about making the game their own. How to deliver the experiences they want for their players.

As it is, they claim one thing, but don’t really back it up. Considering the experience of the players should really be step one for both designers and GMs.

 

[Lanefan]

But for people who haven’t been playing for decades, the anemic attempt is a negative. Add to that that old-timers are the folks who least need advice to specifically be in the game text, and I do think the current approach is a poor one. Instead of reminding a 40 year DM that he’s allowed to make house rules, I think the books should focus on teaching newer DMs how to go about making the game their own. How to deliver the experiences they want for their players.

And, IMO more importantly, stating in great big letters that DMs are both allowed and encouraged to do this; because now more than ever people seem to think they need permission to think outside the box.

 

[Oofta]

Again. You are insisting on value judgements that aren’t there.

This has never, ever been about value judgements about system. It’s about how transparent those systems are.

I think D&D is plenty transparent, it's just not narrowly focused. But it's not like "transparency" has a shared definition or objective way of measuring. I'm not sure why you want to drag this into a response to someone else's post that had nothing to do with this particular point you're trying to make into this argument.

We disagree on how transparent the game is or if it even matters.

 

[Oofta]

Many have pointed out that the title of the thread is nonsensical.
Guilty.
Other have stated it's not clear what I am getting or advocating.
True.

It is a ramble of half-thoughts intended to spark a conversation. I'll try to craft posts more carefully and thought-out in the future.

I had been reading some non-rpg material about game design. Those sources advocated defining what specific play experience you want players to have with game and focus on that in your design. I thought, well, D&D does not do that, but the rules do lend themselves to a certain style of play in my experience. That's where my original mess of a post is coming from - should D&D be designed with a specific play experience in mind?

Many have pointed out that they should not as it would lead to attacks from "alienated" players have a different experience in mind. I think that's true. It probably would be a mistake for D&D to advocate a specific style of play at this point.

I really don't have a dog in this race either way. However, I have enjoyed most of the conversation - Thanks!

I would say that D&D wasn't really "designed" in the way that modern RPGs are. It really came about almost by accident and then slowly grew over the decades. Personally I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, as much as some people think being the best selling game is somehow terrible, it keeps the game active and alive. I'd rather have that then be one of the tightly focused games that have never gained significant traction.

It's great if you like [insert some game here that has a cult following but a fraction of D&D's sales] and you can find people who share your interests. Personally D&D scratches my gaming itch and it's easy to find other people to play with. That works for me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And, IMO more importantly, stating in great big letters that DMs are both allowed and encouraged to do this; because now more than ever people seem to think they need permission to think outside the box.

Do you need such permission, Lanefan? Do you think most folks who are similarly experienced need such permission?

 

[pemerton]

Do you need such permission, Lanefan? Do you think most folks who are similarly experienced need such permission?

I always get permission from the box before I think outside it. I don't want to upset the box!

 

[pemerton]

Part (if not nearly all) of the reason for that was that while 1e was indeed fairly clear about how you were intended to play it, at the same time it was also flexible enough to handle playing those adventures (and thus, styles) that didn't match that intent*. You could play 1e with small tight parties, minimal attention to time (e.g. handwaving spell durations etc.), and with nary a dungeon in sight if you wanted to; and the game could handle it to a surprising extent before starting to fight back very much. You could play west marches, Dragonlance sagas, or anything in between and the game almost wouldn't bat an eyelid. And you can reduce the granularity of resolution fairly easily if you want to.

I think this is significantly exaggerated. AD&D doesn't handle DL particularly well at all - it just punts everything to the GM. I could do the same with RuneQuest or Rolemaster!

Emotional / spiritual conflict
Cost of using magic may incur a risk (possibly a physical toll)
Weapon choice playing a greater role
Limitations of magic and magical power
Bulk and weight are significant limitations
Importance of mundane equipment
Comeliness plays a role
Exhaustion is far more common
Slower recovery of health

Torchbearer 2e has all of this except for the comeliness!

 

[Hussar]

I think D&D is plenty transparent, it's just not narrowly focused. But it's not like "transparency" has a shared definition or objective way of measuring. I'm not sure why you want to drag this into a response to someone else's post that had nothing to do with this particular point you're trying to make into this argument.

We disagree on how transparent the game is or if it even matters.

I agree that it's not narrowly focused. Never argued that it wasn't. Heck, I don't think anyone is arguing that it's "narrowly" focused, although, I think it's perhaps not as broad as you are claiming. The fact that you have to add all sorts of house rules in order to achieve certain play, means that it's not as broadly focused as you are claiming.

I mean, trying to do naval campaigns is a white whale in D&D for me. I've been trying for editions to make it work. But, D&D doesn't handle what I call platoon sized encounters- say 30 combatants to a side - very well at all. It's far too fiddly and granular. See the issues with summoning in 5e (and earlier editions) to see how much of a PITA adding 10-20 combatants to an encounter is.

But, again, transparency is a different issue. There's so little in D&D that is actually explained and it really should be. Why do we have bounded accuracy? What happens if you change bounded accuracy? And what little discussion about that that there is is almost entirely DM facing. There's very little telling the players, "Hey, if you go out of your way to futz with bounded accuracy with your character, you are going to make the game less fun for everyone at the table. Please don't do that."