D&D 5E Heteroglossia and D&D: Why D&D Speaks in a Multiplicity of Playing Styles

[Micah Sweet]

I think if one really listens to other people it’s always been accepted that being first gave d&d a huge advantage. No one has ever denied that.

What does get pushed back against is the notion that the only reason d&d is popular is that it was first/previously popular.

It's not the only reason, or even the only important reason, but I do think it's the  most important reason.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not the only reason, or even the only important reason, but I do think it's the  most important reason.

To me that would be a much more interesting discussion to have.

Historically how important has it been to be first, especially in games and more broadly in all other industries. Sports might make a good starting comparison - it’s really hard for a new sport to totally take off. We get some hype around certain newer ones at times. But they all mostly remain fairly niche. Usually fairly quickly peaking in interest.

But sports is large enough to support 4 or 5 dominate ones and a dozen or so slightly less popular ones before you get to truly niche levels.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Which car is better designed? That depends on the design goals IMO. I think both cars meet their design goals. They are both well designed. I also think their design goals are so different that talking about better designed loses much if it’s meaning here.

Instead the pertinent question seems to me to be, why did they choose the design goals that they did and what effect did achieving those design goals have upon their commercial success.

Exactly. Too often, people mistake design choices that do not appeal to them with "bad design."

This doesn't mean that D&D is immune from critique, or that it doesn't have bad design elements- but in order to understand what is good and bad about D&D's design, you have to understand the design goals D&D begins with, and the ways in which it satisfies (or fails to satisfy) those goals.

There are foundational issues with D&D design that are quite fascinating- like the continued need to have support both for both ToTM and grid within the same system. Or how to incorporate elements to appeal to players with different preferences. Or even the constant push/pull tension of incorporation of old elements (continuity) with moving to new elements (modernity) .... these are all things that pose unique design challenges that most games in this field do not share.

 

[FrogReaver]

Exactly. Too often, people mistake design choices that do not appeal to them with "bad design."

This doesn't mean that D&D is immune from critique, or that it doesn't have bad design elements- but in order to understand what is good and bad about D&D's design, you have to understand the design goals D&D begins with, and the ways in which it satisfies (or fails to satisfy) those goals.

There are foundational issues with D&D design that are quite fascinating- like the continued need to have support both for both ToTM and grid within the same system. Or how to incorporate elements to appeal to players with different preferences. Or even the constant push/pull tension of incorporation of old elements (continuity) with moving to new elements (modernity) .... these are all things that pose unique design challenges that most games in this field do not share.

Exactly! And usually it’s due to the solutions navigating those constraints that people critique D&D for. Which comes across a bit unfair IMO.

 

[Umbran]

@Snarf Zagyg I've multiple times brought up games like d20s that have the same design as D&D literally, but do not have the characteristics you ascribe to it. What we can take from this is that it is not simply a matter of what is between the covers that makes D&D so big. You reject "brand", will you accept "celbrity".

I wouldn't, if I were him, because changing the word doesn't actually elucidate much.

If I am reading him correctly, Snarf is saying that under and behind "brand" or "celebrity" there are actually a large host of items that are of actual interest and could/should be discussed at length individually, rather than used as a whole.

Another way to put it - the marketing strength of the brand cannot/could not be maintained for decades with no regard to the qualities of the product. Brands are not, in fact, self-sustaining. So, it pays to look at the qualities of the product that allow that brand strength to be maintained.

 

[Oofta]

Something else to consider is that with 5E, WOTC had a huge advantage. They could afford to do the biggest survey ever.

They may have targeted a wide audience, building a Toyota instead of a BMW which won't work for everyone. But I do think that leg up allowed them to build a better game.

 

[Malmuria]

That does not mean it is necessarily of higher quality than other games with less mainstream appeal and/or commercial success like Pathfinder Second Edition, D&D 4e

Let's start with the premise that anything officially labeled as "Dungeons and Dragons" as certain built in advantages given that dnd was the start of the hobby and built up a player base and reputation in the 70s and 80s. In that context, it is interesting that you mention dnd 4e as a game with less mainstream appeal and commercial success, as it is an official dnd edition, and it came in with all the advantages of that branding. I'm not making any claims about the design merits or flaws of 4e or any edition, but it seems to me that the advantages of name recognition, existing player base, branding, and having more available capital than anyone else will get wotc so far, but isn't enough to "maximize" the value of all those things. To do that, they needed a different product, hence 5e in 2014. That being said, post 2016, stranger things/critical role/pandemic established a new floor for what they can get out of the brand.

 

[Umbran]

Which car is better designed? That depends on the design goals IMO. I think both cars meet their design goals. They are both well designed. I also think their design goals are so different that talking about better designed loses much if it’s meaning here.

Instead the pertinent question seems to me to be, why did they choose the design goals that they did and what effect did achieving those design goals have upon their commercial success.

The same for RPGs.

Agreed. Of course, we are not often given the actual design goals the writers were aiming for, so that can be difficult.

One thing I have been saying for a whole now, and I will keep saying, is that when you ask the question, "Is this more/better designed?" the question is incomplete. The question more fully stated is "Is this better designed for specific purpose X?"

If you leave off the purpose, the question cannot be answered.

Frequently, when folks say things like this, the implicit purpose is "meeting my particular desires". The result is that two gamers, looking for different things, can have vastly different opinions on whether a game is well designed. So, in this case, we'd have to actually be up front with our own preferences before talking about the design.

And, there is a third option. Do not worry about the goals. Do not worry about your personal desires. Whatever the designers goals, or our own desires, the thing is what it is - one can discuss what it does well, and what it doesn't do well - you can discuss where/how you find the fun in each given system, and decide if that's the fun you want to have.

This last requires a bit of dispassion from the person doing the analysis. The game may be very good at doing things that you don't happen to like, and you have to set aside yourself for a moment and own up that this is okay.

Sometimes you can see this in movies. I use Sin City as an example. I do not like the movie. However, I recognize that it is very well made, and is very effective at what it does - which just happens to be stuff that I don't usually want to watch.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sometimes you can see this in movies. I use Sin City as an example. I do not like the movie. However, I recognize that it is very well made, and is very effective at what it does - which just happens to be stuff that I don't usually want to watch.

Great example.

Take two directors- Wes Anderson and Quentin Tarantino. I love both of them. But they are both very different in terms of their style- they are both incredibly effective, but they make different types of movies that are unlikely to be confused for one another.

There are people (like me) who happen to like both. But there are also people that I know that only like one, or the other, or neither. Tarantino is "too violent." Anderson is "too twee."

But then think about the difference between these two, relatively popular directors, and a Marvel franchise movie. It's hard to imagine either of them directing Black Panther 2, isn't it? Or The Fantastic Four? I mean, I'd love to see either of them do it* ... but that's not going to happen.

It's perfectly possible for something to be well-made, but just not made for you.


*Wes Anderson Presents: A Marvel Movie, starring Bill Murray as Mister Fantastic, Jason Schwartzman as the Human Torch, Tilda Swinton as Sue Storm, and Jeff Goldblum as Ben Grimm. Willem Dafoe as Victor von Doom, MD. Coming Fall 2024, The Fantastical Foursome and the Case of the Cosmic Ennui.

Or The Marvels: Three Girls, Two Feet, One Grindhouse. Quentin Tarantino's Tenth, and Last, Film.

 

[FrogReaver]

Or The Marvels: Three Girls, Two Feet, One Grindhouse. Quentin Tarantino's Tenth, and Last, Film.

There is no punishment adequate enough for this not so thinly veiled reference.