D&D 5E Game Design and Pizza Analogies

[Empirate]

Thank you, Morrus. Gotta love random forum posters accusing other random forum posters of being just that...


Back on to pizza: games are not pizza. Taste in games can vary a lot in each individual, while taste in pizza tends to vary much less (exceptions to prove the rule, now's your time to tell us your banana-salami-spinach-tuna-guacamole-white chocolate pizza story):

I like me some salami, ham, and mushrooms pizza, and will add peperoni on a crazy day, and that's about it for my pizza habits. However, in games I show a little more variety. I love to play Skyrim, but I also like to play Starcraft II, Unreal Tournament, Hearts of Iron, Medieval: Total War, and Edna's Breakout. In roleplaying games, I've tried two versions/editions of Hârnmaster, four of D&D (including PF), one of FATE, one of Vampire: the Masquerade, two of Shadowrun, and two of Das Schwarze Auge (big name in Germany). Most of our games made more or less extensive use of homebrew and houserules, and I've playtested a completely homebrew system for half a year.

And you know what? My enjoyment (or lack of it) of all these depended on the actual game systems only for maybe 40% or less. 'Bland' systems can be used as a base to expand from (just keep those pizza sauces in your fridge, if you still want to follow the analogy). Specialized systems can be adapted. Crazy systems can at least provide some good ideas. Unbalanced systems can at least be abused, or end up in hilarity. And what's more, oh my gosh, you can switch systems if you want to play something else, too!

Bottom line: I think whatever DDN will end up being, I and many, many other people are going to at least check it out. It will almost certainly be a game worth playing.


What I am much less sure about is whether the stated design goal of appealing to as broad an audience as possible has any meaning whatsoever. I mean, hands up, everyone of you who has only ever played one game system, and nothing else! Nobody? Not a single one? Thought as much. But appealing to many people, and leaving out (or for later, optional, sourcebooks) all the really crazy, specialized stuff - why not? If anything, this combined with the big brand name might at least score us a few ten or hundred thousand new roleplayers!

 

[Ahnehnois]

Game design should not be driven by the loudest objectors, because there are other important voices who happen to be quieter.

Indeed. There's already a game built specially for the loudest objectors; we should be moving on and moving away from that.

So I've seen a "pizza analogy" tossed around when it comes to mechanics like Damage on a Miss (which holy crap I am scared to even mention, but bear with me). More or less, it goes like this: I will eat pizza with or without pepperoni. You will only eat pizza without pepperoni. Therefore, we should not order pizza with pepperoni because then everyone wins!

If you're complaining that this is pushing the end product towards being the lowest common denominator, you are right about that. However, I don't think it's really that bad of an analogy. D&D isn't for a specific niche, it's for a broad range of people and is generally the definitional roleplaying game. I think it should end up being, by analogy, a cheese pizza, because anything else will be objectionable.

As with the pizza business, however, it's largely about how well the basics are done, and how amenable it is to addons for those who want it.

 

[delericho]

So I've seen a "pizza analogy" tossed around when it comes to mechanics like Damage on a Miss (which holy crap I am scared to even mention, but bear with me). More or less, it goes like this: I will eat pizza with or without pepperoni. You will only eat pizza without pepperoni. Therefore, we should not order pizza with pepperoni because then everyone wins!

I think that's not just a bad analogy, but a terrible approach towards game design. First because an RPG is way more complex than a pizza with a lot more ingredients, and second because only including stuff that nobody objects to is a completely godawful approach towards making a game. That approach towards design no longer has a goal of making a good game with strong design goals. It's to make a bland one. The least objectionable game possible.

It really depends how many people won't eat pepperoni, and also just how serious they actually are that they won't eat pepperoni. If it's just a handful of forum posters who will end up grumbling but then buying the game anyway, they can be safely ignored.

But if it's a significant minority of your fanbase and they genuinely will not buy if the item in question is included, then WotC have to take their concern seriously, because even if those people are utterly, objectively wrong in whatever they are saying, the lost sales are still enough to kill 5e stone dead.

It's also worth noting that game design, just like pizza design, is more complex than "do we have pepperoni or not". There's a huge range of mechanics/flavours out there that can be used in certain combinations. So if there are 99 mechanics that are broadly agreeable and 1 that really splits opinion (as does seem to be the case here), that does rather suggest giving that 1 a miss and working with the other 99. Especially since that 1 can easily be added later by those who want it. (And, as with pizzas, it is much easier to add things to the mechanics of an RPG later than it is to take them away.)

--

Oh, also, since you mentioned ice cream analogies later in the thread, I would note that if you do a survey of favourite ice cream flavours, relatively few people will list vanilla as their favourite. And yet if you look at actual sales of ice cream, vanilla outsells the rest by a wide margin.

Two reasons:

- again, it's easy for people to start with a vanilla base and then add things to it

- the people who like other flavours tend to like particular other flavours, and to dislike a different set of other flavours. So the people who really like "Rum & Raisin" will hate "Mint Choc Chip", and vice versa. And so, while vanilla is their nobody's favourite choice it's also the one they're able to compromise on.

That's a rather important consideration when you're WotC and have to make certain sales targets or see the game cancelled.

 

[Mercurius]

I thought Damage on a Miss was what happened to my marriage when I'm not 100% accurate with my urination aim.

 

[TwoSix]

If you're complaining that this is pushing the end product towards being the lowest common denominator, you are right about that. However, I don't think it's really that bad of an analogy. D&D isn't for a specific niche, it's for a broad range of people and is generally the definitional roleplaying game. I think it should end up being, by analogy, a cheese pizza, because anything else will be objectionable.

As much as I'm unhappy about my beloved meat-lover's pizza being taken off the menu (lots of texture, nice spicy sauce, light on the cheese), there's nothing wrong with the company trying to make the best darn cheese pizza possible by mixing together the best ingredients of the last pizza. Hopefully, they'll start offering some sausage and pepperoni to put on the tasty cheese pizza, even if it doesn't quite match up to the old meat-lover's.

Besides, there's a place down the street that also has a meat lover's, even if the ingredients are a little different.

 

[billd91]

And it's terrible. Game design should not be driven by the loudest objectors, because there are other important voices who happen to be quieter.

I can't help but think about Nixon and his "silent majority" here.

 

[Umbran]

Please shut your yap, go play some Pathfinder, and spare us your unhelpful noise pollution.

I can't condone how you've phrased this, but buried in there is a good point.

Why spend your time talking about something you despise? Moreover, why spend your time being rude to people who have no notable input into the process to make you hate it less? If you don't like what you've seen of 5e, that's cool. Go play a game you like, and write *constructive* things about it, instead of spending time tearing down a game you don't like, and won't play anyway.

Funny. The most vocal 5e detractors I've seen are 4e fans, upset at the "step backwards".

If we set aside confirmation bias (the tendency to see things that support our personal preferences, and gloss over things that do not), and I think you'll find it is pretty even.

So, really, folks, go talk about games you actually like. Moreover, a challenge: Tell us how absolutely stunningly awesome your favorite game is, *without* comparing it to any other edition or game.

Or, to use a pizza analogy - if you have a slice of pizza, you don't make it better by grabbing someone else's, throwing it on the floor, and stomping on it.

 

[am181d]

As long as we can all agree that you don't eat D&D Next with a knife and fork!

 

[Obryn]

Okay, so I really do think pizza analogies are terrible, but I've seen that I'm not allowed an opinion due to my lack of credentials.

Ahnehnois - I'm so super duper not interested in edition sniping.

I can't help but think about Nixon and his "silent majority" here.

Surveys are the context, along with the designers' statements about them.

More to the point, though, if it's "no comment" versus loud minority of objectors, I'm going to side with the developers in pursuing their design vision.

 

[Umbran]

Okay, so I really do think pizza analogies are terrible, but I've seen that I'm not allowed an opinion due to my lack of credentials.

Can we please refrain from taking potshots at people who have been moderated? Thanks, much.