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

[Hussar]

Uhmmm...huh? Did I comment in this thread?

Whoops, that's what happens when typing while sleepy and on the phone. My total bad.

That should have been @Oofta.

 

[jgsugden]

Because in both of those examples, the player’s experience in that particular system will be very different depending on which way you go.

Before you decide how to present the game to players those decisions have to be made.

... why?

When I start a campaign I get to know the players first. If they're new, I run a short adventure for them and use that as a diagnostic.

Then I have a first session 0 and ask them about what they want to do and play. We bounce ideas back and forth and I use that to influence my decisions on how to run the game. Then we do character construction and begin a game that is tailored to a.) What they tell me, and b.) What I've observed when watching them as players. My goal: Make a fun game for them.

It is not a matter of how I go. It is a matter of how we decide to go.

As such, we do not make those decisions before we determine the game. We determine those decisions as the game is created. They're part of the same process.

If you're going to run an off the shelf module and do not know how to modify it, or if you want to dictate to your players what you're running without their input, then they have to adapt to you ... but if the goal is to give them a good experience, I would work to try to learn how to adapt to their desires. I've played with DMs that don't take player input into the game and with DMs that listen to the players before decising on what to do ... and I can tell you there is a very distinct correlation between the input the players provide and the enjoyment of the players.

 

[Oofta]

Whoops, that's what happens when typing while sleepy and on the phone. My total bad.

That should have been @Oofta.

Not sure what you're saying then. Different games have different approaches, but all games effectively focus on the player experience. They just do it in different ways and different games may express it differently.

I get the some people like other types of games, I'm just not following what the OP is getting at.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The thing is, people are looking for vastly different game experiences.

 

[Oofta]

The thing is, people are looking for vastly different game experiences.

Fair enough, but different experiences are neither better nor worse. I don't see how different approaches (D20/D&D style or PbtA) are more or less focused on player game experience.

 

[Hussar]

... why?

When I start a campaign I get to know the players first. If they're new, I run a short adventure for them and use that as a diagnostic.

Then I have a first session 0 and ask them about what they want to do and play. We bounce ideas back and forth and I use that to influence my decisions on how to run the game. Then we do character construction and begin a game that is tailored to a.) What they tell me, and b.) What I've observed when watching them as players. My goal: Make a fun game for them.

It is not a matter of how I go. It is a matter of how we decide to go.

As such, we do not make those decisions before we determine the game. We determine those decisions as the game is created. They're part of the same process.

If you're going to run an off the shelf module and do not know how to modify it, or if you want to dictate to your players what you're running without their input, then they have to adapt to you ... but if the goal is to give them a good experience, I would work to try to learn how to adapt to their desires. I've played with DMs that don't take player input into the game and with DMs that listen to the players before decising on what to do ... and I can tell you there is a very distinct correlation between the input the players provide and the enjoyment of the players.

We’re talking about two different things.

You are talking about running a campaign. Presumably after a system has been chosen.

I’m talking about choosing a system in the first place.

 

[Clint_L]

Fair enough, but different experiences are neither better nor worse. I don't see how different approaches (D20/D&D style or PbtA) are more or less focused on player game experience.

I think what the OP is getting at (but please correct me if I'm wrong) is that PbtA games, for example, produce a much more defined player experience.

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough, but different experiences are neither better nor worse. I don't see how different approaches (D20/D&D style or PbtA) are more or less focused on player game experience.

Because, by and large, D&D avoids being explicit about it's expectations in play. And has become less and less explicit over time. AD&D was actually pretty clear in how you were meant to play the game - dungeon crawling, time tracking, troupe play. But, that got largely ignored because then the modules presented adventures that were anything but that. 5e is largely silent in what it expects groups to do. WotC absolutely learned that lesson from 4e. Trying to be explicit and say - "for best results with this system, here's how we think you should play" was rejected by the fandom.

But, it is still there. The whole skill system - where players are expected to state goals and the DM then calls for skill checks as needed, works better than the other way around. It runs smoother and is far less frustrating for the DM and the table. 5e is pretty explicit here in that this is how skills are meant to be run.

That's a very good example of having the player experience as a goal gets explicitly stated.

 

[Oofta]

I think what the OP is getting at (but please correct me if I'm wrong) is that PbtA games, for example, produce a much more defined player experience.

Sure. But having a game that is more defined, has more rules surrounding resolution of non-combat challenges, having rules for adding to world lore, etc. does not make it inherently more player game experience focused or a better game. At least not for everyone.

 

[Oofta]

Because, by and large, D&D avoids being explicit about it's expectations in play. And has become less and less explicit over time. AD&D was actually pretty clear in how you were meant to play the game - dungeon crawling, time tracking, troupe play. But, that got largely ignored because then the modules presented adventures that were anything but that. 5e is largely silent in what it expects groups to do. WotC absolutely learned that lesson from 4e. Trying to be explicit and say - "for best results with this system, here's how we think you should play" was rejected by the fandom.

But, it is still there. The whole skill system - where players are expected to state goals and the DM then calls for skill checks as needed, works better than the other way around. It runs smoother and is far less frustrating for the DM and the table. 5e is pretty explicit here in that this is how skills are meant to be run.

That's a very good example of having the player experience as a goal gets explicitly stated.

See my previous post. More rules does not necessarily make a better game or experience. It just creates a different experience. D&D doesn't tell you how to handle non-combat encounters in details because they tried that with 4E and, while it had some interesting ideas, it wasn't popular enough to carry over to 5E unlike some other concepts.