D&D 5E Human (mis) perception and how it affects gaming

[Ahnehnois]

To increase sales of the RPG, of course.

Or did I misunderstand your question?

Maybe. I think that clearer writing is better, to be sure, but I think that there's an independence to gaming that prevents any game designer from really understanding what's going on out in the field. Forums and customer feedback capture only a small segment of the available information on that topic; even playtests are hardly catching a representative sample of gamers or getting comprehensive feedback from them.

I think a good game designer is modest, accepts these limitations, and writes in a minimalist and open-ended style, but an still explicit and clear style, if that makes sense. And I think that the strength of the hobby is that individual gaming groups each have their own approach to the game. The provincial diversity of D&D relative to other games is remarkable.

Also, refer to [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION] 's perspective above.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

We do not all work the same when it comes to accessing our creative centers.

Precisely, so why do you want to construct the rules such that we have unwavering perceptions of them? If you have a detailed description of the designers' intent for something then any creative interpretations you may have had before reading that are quashed, because you realise you misinterpreted the rules. Not having that sidebar changes a misinterpretation into your perfectly valid interpretation, and if you and your table get along fine with that, why tread on their fun?

A tangible framework does not mean a rigid one. I really don't understand what prevents you from leveraging your creative reservoir being creative if your group interprets a rule one way and others interpret it another way - some insecurity that you aren't following the designers' True Intent? This is D&D, not a religious text.

 

[Starfox]

* Designers notes
* Well-written and edited examples of play. Nothing disrupts understanding like an example of play that was written for a past iteration of the rules!
* Logical presentation. All rules pertaining to one issue should be in one place, or at least as few places as possible.
* Logical conformity: If there is a pattern to how rules generally work (like 1d20 + bonus, high is good), any exceptions or deviations should be strongly noted.
* As few cases of "this works like the ranger ability, except that" - that is, rules should be written out, not referenced whenever space permits.

 

[sheadunne]

* Logical presentation. All rules pertaining to one issue should be in one place, or at least as few places as possible.
* As few cases of "this works like the ranger ability, except that" - that is, rules should be written out, not referenced whenever space permits.

Remove the core rules from the PHB, DMG, and MM and put in their own "rules compendium."

 

[Li Shenron]

How, if it all, can a ruleset (specifically 5e) work to minimize the inherent "perception flux" that exists between each of us?

I would start from banning all rules based on "clever" tricks of mechanical terms, that usually end up in "dumb" interpretations (such as the 3e infamous "cleave the bag o' puppies").

 

[Libramarian]

Solid, transparent, non-negotiable information doesn't inherently inhibit creativity or imagination. For many people, without a tangible framework/canvass, they are paralyzed with an inability to leverage their creative reservoir. We do not all work the same when it comes to accessing our creative centers.

This is pretty elliptical, can you give me an example?

 

[Manbearcat]

This is pretty elliptical, can you give me an example?

Sure.

With the above I was just talking about Choice Paralysis and Decision Fatigue.

Options and decisions are often at tension. People seem to inherently want limitless options, but when they have them it can be subversive to making optimal choices or any choice at all. A paradox.

Give an artist no direction, and a certain cross-section will be inhibited in their production. Give them a muse, some theme or a picture to bind their thoughts to, and they may suddenly become prolific and produce multiple works.

The same thing applies to certain folks trying to author stories. Give them no "glue" or main idea and they're staggered. Give them some direction (perhaps as little as two elements; maybe a ball point pen and a scream) and suddenly they're writing.

The same thing works with consumers. We think we want limitless choices (What's better than choices? MOAR CHOICES!) but we're more likely to make a purchase (and an informed one) when our choices are limited or we have some direction.

However, with regards to what I was getting at in the initial post, I was really thinking on the nature of 5e; a core product with a modular interface that is supposed to let you plug in modules which lets you reproduce a creative agenda and a game experience that caters to your tastes.

Things such as the below should probably be clearly canvassed for each module:

- GM mental overhead or table handling time: If folks (GMs specifically) are wanting a quick and easy play experience, then there should be some rating or at least a proper explanation on how this particular module (be it heavy equipment resource tracking, wounds, mass combat, etc) will work out in play.

- PC stance implications: Specifically how resources that expect players to exit actor stance and deploy narrative control work out in play. What they are trying to do and how they affect play experience.

- Subjective, scaling DCs for conflict resolution: Specifically what they're trying to do. What they represent (an abstraction of the task within the scope of the conflict/adversity at hand) and what they do not represent (an objective obstacle or testa).

Those kinds of things. It seems to me to be a wise thing for the designers to be as transparent as possible about what each module is trying to do, what playstyle/creative agenda it is advocating for, and how much GM mental overhead and table handling time is to be expected with each. Most of us grogs won't have too much trouble sorting it out, but newer players may find themselves sifting through a pile of "stuff" and plugging things in which may yield an incoherent collage of blah that may actively work against each other.

 

[Libramarian]

I would love to see the modules and advice text pre-grouped into broader playstyles (e.g. sandbox vs. story-focused), as long as this can be done without each section sniping at the other style. I honestly don't know how hard that would be; I wonder, because some of the game text that has been brought up and praised in the scene-framing threads has struck me as being ill-informed about and unfairly dismissive of sandboxing, e.g. the claim in "Burning THAC0" that most encounters in old school modules are "just filler". It doesn't seem necessary in order to explain and advocate scene-framing to imply that people who prefer sandboxing are masochists or have too much time on their hands, but I dunno.

 

[Manbearcat]

I would hope that there is enough talent in WotC that appreciates classic sand-boxing and indie scene-based play to pull this off. While they are different agendas and have different expectations, I know plenty of folks who enjoy both styles of play and can easily advocate for both. If WotC can't pull off advocating for both styles, then how on earth can we hope that they can actually grasp the nuance of the mechanical workings of the resolution tools required to engender each style of play to sufficiently compose rules modules. I mean, I know some architects and engineers have sufficiently poor communication skills such that you don't want them heading up the dossier portion of a project. However, we should be able to expect that those guys aren't writing for WotC? Shouldn't we?



** Truth be told, I'm pretty sure all of the guys at WotC are much more equipped to advocate for and break down classic D&D play than they are for indie style gaming. At least, they wouldn't be my first choice for it.

 

[Libramarian]

I don't think it's just ignorance or laziness that leads to these jingoistic rules of thumb like "skip the filler and get to the fun!" or...what's an old school one...I guess just the general deflationary attitude towards story and drama--the "RetroStupid" aesthetic.

Old school bloggers love this stuff actually--there's Ren Faire D&D vs. Metal D&D, "If your players are the sort of wan, fin-de-siecle aesthetes who need a reason to go dungeoncrawling..." etc.

I think people crave this kind of tribalism if only to help resolve their own gamer ADHD and get to doing something instead of endlessly pondering what to do next.

But I have some hope that if D&D explained, clearly and preferably procedurally, a couple of different types of campaigns, each reliably enjoyable with a low risk of absolute disaster, then people would start to have less trepidation before starting a new game, and consequently less need to be tribalistic and dismissive of other approaches in order to achieve enough psychological momentum to get gaming.