MarkChevallier
First Post
We can all agree that the D&D community is split at the moment. People have different opinions on many rules issues, on play style, on the place of magic in the game, on customisability, on basically everything you can mention.
But all these people were all D&D fans once; they all played the game, and presumably enjoyed playing it, even if they still disagreed with Rogues getting sneak attack on every flanking attack, or thought wizard spell preparation was stupid and should be a spell point system, or thought fighters should be able to do lots of amazing feats in battle.
So why did they keep playing? Why enjoy a system with flaws? I don't think most players of D&D were entirely happy with it; more-or-less everyone I know had some kind of problem with the rules, in one edition or another.
I think it's because the game was, purely and simply, good enough for them. It's a game that's commonly played, you can always find people to share a table with, it shares a common language and common referents, and the problems you have? They just aren't bad enough to force you out the door. It's a fun game to have fun times with friends and create a) epic stories or b) slapstick buffonery or c) gritty tales of sword and sorcery or d) all of the above and more.
D&D was never perfect, because it couldn't be perfect for everyone - everyone has a different idea for their perfect game. It had to be just good enough for everyone.
And what mistake did they make with D&D 4E? They tried to perfect it for a particular part of the community (including, of course, the designers themselves). They twiddled some of those dials, and it became a much better, much more enjoyable game for, let's arbitrarily say, 40% of the playerbase. For 20%, it was still "good enough". For 40%, though, it no longer was good enough. It had departed from their vision of the game, it no longer did what they wanted it to.
What lesson does this give us for 5E?
I think the most important lesson is to try and not aim for perfection; aim for "good enough", for as many people as possible, and then make it as good as you can without pushing it out of that bracket.
It also warns us not to innovate too much, in an attempt to get the game closer to your vision of perfection, because your meat is another man's poison.
I think the designers behind 5E know this; I think that's what they're trying to do. I certainly hope so. I want to see D&D become the Good Enough system again.
But all these people were all D&D fans once; they all played the game, and presumably enjoyed playing it, even if they still disagreed with Rogues getting sneak attack on every flanking attack, or thought wizard spell preparation was stupid and should be a spell point system, or thought fighters should be able to do lots of amazing feats in battle.
So why did they keep playing? Why enjoy a system with flaws? I don't think most players of D&D were entirely happy with it; more-or-less everyone I know had some kind of problem with the rules, in one edition or another.
I think it's because the game was, purely and simply, good enough for them. It's a game that's commonly played, you can always find people to share a table with, it shares a common language and common referents, and the problems you have? They just aren't bad enough to force you out the door. It's a fun game to have fun times with friends and create a) epic stories or b) slapstick buffonery or c) gritty tales of sword and sorcery or d) all of the above and more.
D&D was never perfect, because it couldn't be perfect for everyone - everyone has a different idea for their perfect game. It had to be just good enough for everyone.
And what mistake did they make with D&D 4E? They tried to perfect it for a particular part of the community (including, of course, the designers themselves). They twiddled some of those dials, and it became a much better, much more enjoyable game for, let's arbitrarily say, 40% of the playerbase. For 20%, it was still "good enough". For 40%, though, it no longer was good enough. It had departed from their vision of the game, it no longer did what they wanted it to.
What lesson does this give us for 5E?
I think the most important lesson is to try and not aim for perfection; aim for "good enough", for as many people as possible, and then make it as good as you can without pushing it out of that bracket.
It also warns us not to innovate too much, in an attempt to get the game closer to your vision of perfection, because your meat is another man's poison.
I think the designers behind 5E know this; I think that's what they're trying to do. I certainly hope so. I want to see D&D become the Good Enough system again.