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

[SableWyvern]

Okay. I disagree, but whatever. To me "Should D&D have the player's experience as a goal" is basically word salad. Every game has the player experience as a goal and this conversation is going nowhere.

I believe that what the OP means to ask is, "Does/should D&D specify what the intended player experience is?"

I agree that the actual thread title makes no sense, as written.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Certainly. For a game to exist, it must make some kind of decision (usually many such decisions) about the experiences it intends to seek. Unfortunately, "not bothering to pick anything" (or, worse, "pretending to be everything to everyone") is also a choice.

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.

I'm really not sure that that actually follows from what is being discussed though. Having a game that is more defined does do that...if it is defined well. Which is sort of the whole point. That's why game design is not a purely artistic medium. It does contain art in it, as there are many purely creative choices which can vary in how skillfully they are executed but not in whether they are good or bad. But it also contains technology, because we can in fact develop better design techniques, learn from design mistakes, etc. Much like how brewing beer is both an art and a science (or technology), and a well-made beer requires both good aesthetic sense and the best methods and tools. Or baking, or any number of other fields which are inextricably bound to aesthetics while still also being technical skills.

I guess what I'm saying is, yes, "having more" alone does not make things better. But nor is it the case that having less is inherently more player game experience focused or better. What matters is what is useful--and that means we cannot simply assert "more is more" any more than we can assert "less is more." You have to actually demonstrate why more <foo> or less <bar> is more quality/efficacy/utility/etc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, that does roll back to the OP. Should D&D be explicit in it's player experience goals? Since you are a very big fan of 5e and how it does things, and 5e is fairly explicit in certain areas - such as skills, then I would say that you would agree that D&D should be explicit in its player goals.

The primary difference between how 4e and 5e is presented is that 4e explained WHY these player goals were presented in this or that way. 5e simply presents everything without spending much time on explaining the reasons for why it does this or that. Most of us agree that bounded accuracy, for example, is a good thing. But, AFAIK, that's not actually discussed in the 5e DMG. Bounded accuracy is presented - but, it's never really explained as to why they went this way.

Which, honestly, seems to fit with 5e's presentation all the way along. Very few decision points are ever explained - they're just presented fait acompli.

You can count me among those who think "bounded accuracy" was actually a pretty bad move. Partially because it's mostly not actually having that much to do with accuracy, and because it really isn't anywhere near as "bounded" as people think, so it ends up being...not really much of anything. It doesn't even rise to the level of a design goal, since 5e violates "bounded" accuracy quite readily if you know where to look, and has done so since at least midway through the original playtest. (Anyone remember the "mid-level Rogue has only slightly less than even chance to tell a lie to the Prince of Lies himself" thing? Pepperidge Farm remembers.)

It was a very late rulebook for 3E, and probably not a big seller, but I wish 5E could take some inspiration from the Rules Compendium and just talk about this stuff, ideally in the PHB, but certainly in the DMG, even if it's in the context of "we're going to show you how to do horror in D&D, but just so you know, our feelings won't be hurt if you wanted to grab a copy of Dread to use with your Halloween game this year."

Oh, you'll never see that with 5e. We have yet to see 5.5e, so things might change there, but you'd never have seen a product like this for 5e. The obfuscation was never an accident. It was the goal from the beginning. By pretending it doesn't have any specific goals or purposes (even though it surely does, quite specific ones in many cases), they can maintain the appearance of being a big tent, of inviting folks back in. And then, under the excuse of it being a "toolkit" (despite the many ways it actively resists being used as such), of "kitbashing" or "homebrewing," they can rely on the players themselves to actually do the design (re)work required.

It's quite tidy, actually. Never commit to anything, never give more than wishy-washy "well you can do X, or you can do opposite-of-X, or something in between! It's up to you!", with a steady injection of people literally doing the design work to make stuff happen in the first place, and you can have your cake and eat it to. It can be almost everything to almost everyone, because you avoid drawing attention to how much work they do to make it be everything they want.

Folks like @Micah Sweet are generally on board for the general shape and overall kind of game experience 5e offers--but they've realized how little the offered system does to support that experience. That's why they've become rather more jaded about "official" 5e and much more attached to the many 3PP books that rewrite it. (I'd also argue that that's what happened with the folks at Critical Role and, AIUI, several other actual play podcast groups out there; that's why most of them have moved on to other systems or, in some cases, designed their own system.)

I believe that what the OP means to ask is, "Does/should D&D specify what the intended player experience is?"

I agree that the actual thread title makes no sense, as written.

Should they, if they wish to improve the design of the game? Yes. Because being clear about your design intent is essential for getting effective feedback. If you don't know why something exists, you cannot meaningfully critique whether it's doing its job, to say nothing of how well it does that job.

Should they, if they wish to move units? Hell no. As soon as you speak frankly with your userbase, they'll fight you tooth and nail about it. Doesn't matter if you're literally just making explicit what has been implicit and intended for decades. Doesn't matter if what you're doing is literally what their own community conclusions have been for that span of time. As soon as you cross the line, as soon as you actually do stuff openly and above board, you've committed the cardinal sin of telling them what to do.

Of course, you've been telling them what to do from the very beginning, since that's what game rules are, literally the instructions for how to play. But as soon as you show that, oh boy, a vocal minority of the fanbase will be on you like stink on poop, and they are extremely adept at whipping up a frenzy amongst far less invested players.

 

[Oofta]

I believe that what the OP means to ask is, "Does/should D&D specify what the intended player experience is?"

I agree that the actual thread title makes no sense, as written.

I guess I just don't know what "the intended player experience" even really means. They tell people what the game is in the intro, it's a structured way to play pretend fantasy heroes. What else do you need? It's not focused on any one specific niche within that niche. It's not a game about recreating a specific movie trope like Ocean's 11, slowly going mad fighting eldritch horrors or any other specific style of game.

What would something that even stated the intended player experience look like? Because I think the intro to the PHB pretty much sums it up. But I was told that it was just meaningless "flavor text". In other words I was just trying to understand what this means other than "My non-D&D game does it better because I say so even though I can't actually explain it."

 

[Imaro]

I'd be curious to hear what those asking for a more explicitly stated game experience from 5e believe that experience to be? And to be fully transparent I find it interesting that those who dislike 5e or don't play it much are often vocal about what it can't do but I don't often see them stating what it does well... on the other hand those who play it extensively seem to state that it can do many things at a satisfactory (not the best) level for their needs...

 

[Clint_L]

I guess I just don't know what "the intended player experience" even really means.

I don't know what it means for 5e. Not exactly. Or for any D&D edition with the possible exceptions of Basic and 4e.

I know exactly what it means for Dread or Fiasco.

I don't consider that a criticism of any of those game systems.

 

[jgsugden]

I believe that what the OP means to ask is, "Does/should D&D specify what the intended player experience is?"

I agree that the actual thread title makes no sense, as written.

Pg 6 of the DMG.

Dungeon Master’s Guide

Everything a Dungeon Master needs to weave legendary stories for the world’s greatest roleplaying game. Entertain and Inspire Your Players.

www.dndbeyond.com

The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them, and help steer the campaign through their characters’ actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you’ve created, and to let their characters do awesome things.

Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players’ preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged.

It then goes on to describe how to tailor the game experience to the player's desires by addressing the styles players may enjoy utilizing.

This entire page, at the very beginning of the DMG, is telling you what the expectations should be for a DM in terms of crafting a campaign that will give the players a great experience.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Folks like @Micah Sweet are generally on board for the general shape and overall kind of game experience 5e offers--but they've realized how little the offered system does to support that experience. That's why they've become rather more jaded about "official" 5e and much more attached to the many 3PP books that rewrite it. (I'd also argue that that's what happened with the folks at Critical Role and, AIUI, several other actual play podcast groups out there; that's why most of them have moved on to other systems or, in some cases, designed their own system.)

In truth that is where I'm at. Your post just echoed the way I feel about D&D and where it is going.
My players have entertained my system for a module I'm running, much of it which I still have to work out (including magic), but the core health and die-mechanic is done. It is a bastardisation of systems with a healthy dose of plagiarism.

I have my high-level campaign which I need to finish and then I will never return to the D&D-engine again.

 

[Oofta]

I don't know what it means for 5e. Not exactly. Or for any D&D edition with the possible exceptions of Basic and 4e.

I know exactly what it means for Dread or Fiasco.

I don't consider that a criticism of any of those game systems.

It's not a criticism either way and it's not a criticism to prefer games with a narrow focus. But that's all I'm trying to understand - is the OP saying that D&D should have a narrower focus? Because I'd disagree with that, I think there are other games targeting that niche if it's what's desired.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'd be curious to hear what those asking for a more explicitly stated game experience from 5e believe that experience to be?

I thought I made it pretty clear: 5E is great at low-lethality heroic fantasy where the heroes grow over time to become truly titanic heroes. With the low real risk of permanent death, players can reasonably expect to play a single character over the span of a campaign, allowing them to invest in their growth, both mechanically and as people.

It's less good at delivering experiences that deviate from that, requiring a lot of special rules for a given campaign, and sometimes even those aren't enough (as witnessed in many threads here over the years).