I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Ruin Explorer]

Modern D&D also has taken a lot of steps to try to streamline things like stealth and perception. In theory, the mechanics used for 5E's skill system and codifying a character can do something are better mechanics. But the end result is a bit of a convoluted mess that often defies any common understanding of even simply being able to see something. Even with errata and updates to the 5e24 books, the end result still often doesn't make a lot of sense.

The stealth and perception rules in 5E are a disaster for sure.

But they're a good example of not following good practice, not using a modern approach, not being goal-oriented, but instead trying to "freestyle" it.

There were dozens of games they could have used as a model. Yet they chose a totally unique and completely bizarre approach, which appears to be goal-less.

The surprise rules are even worse. I'd love to get all the people involved in their design to sit down in a room, and interrogate them like I was in Homicide: Life on the Streets, or at least Brooklyn 99, about why they did that way, because again, there's no perceptible or sane goal, and it looks nothing like any successful "surprise" system. Both 3E and 4E had perfectly good ones they could have just cribbed. One point of modern, conscious design is THINK BEFORE YOU CHANGE THINGS. Never change for change's sake. And WotC didn't follow that. They changed for the sake of changing as far as I can tell.

The biggest failing though is that they simply confuse and confound a lot of players (both surprise and stealth). They're counter-intuitive, they're weird and worst of all, they don't fit the fiction! It's the same kind of "We know better, we can freestyle it!" attitude we saw in a lot of early 1990s RPGs. It's not common in the rest of 5E, but it is present there, in 2014 and the incompetent 2024 attempts to "improve" things.

Magic and Magic Items are another example that comes to mind. While modern design has taken steps to better codify things and fit into modern ideas of game design, the end result is less fun. Certainly, maybe older systems lead to things that were imbalanced and maybe even unfair in some cases, but modern +N slots just feel kinda bland and lesser than how things were handled in older design. Fun is a subjective thing, so this is a weak example, but I play games with people and read the forums. I'm not alone in my views on this.

Agree 100% about magic items.

5E does apply modern-ish design to magic items and doesn't do much more than en-blandify them. I don't think that example is actually as weak as you think! Stuff like attunement is a fine concept, but it's pure metagame. Look at how Earthdawn used a similar concept, all the way back in 1994, but actually tied it into the game and setting and systems in a way D&D 5E simply doesn't, just uses at a metagame power limit.

4E did more interesting things with its modern design with magic items, which despite being for 6 years earlier, actually seems more modern imho. You don't have to like it but I think I respect it more than 5E magic item-wise.

Disagree 100 about magic spells.

5E absolutely point-blank refuses to apply modern design to magic spells though. It's active throwback design, almost an OSR design re: magic. It's just a bad one. We can't blame modernity or good design practice mere boring ideas and design conservatism are actually the problem. The retro magic/spell design of 5E was a major complaint I had back when 5E came out in 2014, note.

If 5E applied modern ideas to D&D spell design, we'd be looking at something more Dungeon World, Shadowdark or what Mike Mearls is working on right now. The way even 5E 2024 handles spells, it could have been written in 2000 - it's very similar to 3E just with a different wording approach (one developed by MtG in the 1990s, and which I'd personally say is just not a good choice for a TTRPG).

For example, I do not like when an otherwise intelligent or proficient TV show or movie character is suddenly a moron (or incompetent at their usual niche) for a few episodes because the story needs them to be for a plot to work. I mean, yeah, sure, we all have our boneheaded moments, but not like that. It's an accepted trope in a lot of shows, but I still hate it. The Boba Fett tv show was pretty bad at this; apparently, he just forgot that he had a jetpack during the various episodes when enemies would trap him in an alleyway.

So I think this is not even an example that supports your point because you're not talking about a game.

You're talking about a TV show.

And you're talking bad writing, not a genre trope. Idiot-ball isn't a genre trope, it's something that happens because of bad writing and can happen in any genre - horror, musical, lawyer show, action, whatever. No game (that I'm aware of) has chosen, so far to including it in mechanics. I think the only time you would is if you making a game that was making fun of Hollywood movies/shows, like if you were doing that, like it was specifically a parody that might make sense.

But again, AFAIK, never been done in an actual game, so not an example.

I know that's not game mechanics. But I think that problems that I have with that clash of expectation VS result can also be found when playing RPGs. If shiny new mechanics produce results that are at odds with what makes sense, I would rather stick with the old clunky stuff.

Definitely but my experience is that new mechanics are more often preventing that, and I've been played TTRPGs since 1989. The vast majority of "results that are at odds with what makes sense" were ones I saw in games that were written between 1980 and about 2005. Games after 2010 particularly seem to be far less prone to "that doesn't make any sense" than games slapped together in the preceding 30 years (of course some were built with care, but that's much more common now).

Whether or not those more steps actually take more time than the current "streamlined" approaches is debatable.

I don't think that's true actually. It's usually pretty easy to prove. You just need to compare like-to-like, not make generalizations about combat length in total, when the problem could be elsewhere. Like, if combat takes 30 mins with one game, and 15 mins with another, it doesn't mean grappling is the problem. That inference doesn't make sense. It means something in the combat is the issue (and that we're valuing short combat length).

I think part of the issue here though is that you seem to think 5E is very modern design, when it's a 2014 game that, apart from two concepts:

1) Bounded accuracy

2) Advantage and disadvantage

Was fundamentally and intentionally designed to be very similar to 2000's 3E. I've discussed this at huge, huge length since 2014 even. The biggest change being ditching huge amounts of excess baggage (literally thousands of Feats, particularly) but it's intentionally a throwback design. It's not quite OSR, but it's also not quite not that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

...and who am I to tell them they're wrong?

A fairly typical gamer?

 

[SkidAce]

Somewhat off topic, your comment gives me an excuse to mention my favorite RPG combat of all time:

A long time ago, I ran a one-shot inspired by The Matrix using some version of the FATE system. The rules let me use the same mechanics to resolve any conflict, regardless of the time scale involved. For example, a conflict involving a minute-long melee combat and one involving an hour-long vehicle chase would both follow the same rules.

At one point, a PC was standing on the roof of a train in the virtual world, face-to-face with a major villain. They were a few paces apart with no cover between them. They both decided to open fire with semi-automatic pistols. I considered the rules and said, "Screw it. If I can use any time scale I want, we're resolving this fight scene in Bullet Time (TM)."

For the next five rounds, each of my players played the role of a single bullet as it travelled in slow motion between the two combatants. Every offensive roll represented a slight change in a bullet's trajectory. Every defensive roll represented a superhuman attempt to dodge. The combat ended with a single bullet striking and killing the villain. Everyone cheered.

I don't really have a point here, except to say on rare occasions, it's better to take longer to achieve less.

Hmm ,that could be used for dueling...what checks did you use, I'm curious of the details.