In Defence of D&D: The "Good Enough" System

[Halivar]

I think "good enough" should be exactly the goal of the new D&D Core. Let gamers take the "good enough," and give them the tools to make their own "perfect" out of it.

 

[MarkChevallier]

But perfection should always be the goal, because improvement, refinement, and evolution are always necessary (because of the "never going to be perfect" thing). Saying that something should not strive towards genuine perfection is the same thing as saying that a flawed game that annoys people and drives away fans is the ideal. I won't agree with that.

But perfection is different for many people. Making it perfect for you may make it not good enough for someone else. Do you think, if you got to say exactly how 5E was, in every detail, to satisfy your personal tastes alone, it would keep the market? But it might be perfect for you.

And both 3E and 4E are clearly good enough for lots of people! As were BECMI, 1E, 2E and all of them.

In response to Crazy Jerome, I agree completely; when you can improve something in a way that most people will appreciate and won't turn too many people off, go ahead. That's great, and I'm not arguing against progress here. Just saying, there are many competing tastes in the D&D world, and you can't make the game perfect for all of them. You make it as good as you can while still being good enough for all of them.

 

[Aramax]

I think the OP has hit something right on the head,but its a djinn thats already out of the bottle at this point.The split on 'what is D&D'is
prob permanint at this point.Im not sure a 5th is going to be good enuf for anybody.I hope Im wrong.In my own case,I switched to Pathfinder,but am open to 5th enough that I give myself a 60-70% chance that I will at least pick up the players and DMs,to see if it cures the problems I have w/Pathfinder.


Too see if its good enuf.

 

[SlyDoubt]

I don't think he's saying perfection isn't something to strive for. He's saying that it just isn't something one system can actually do as long as 'perfection' was already a different system to someone. If you love AD&D then that already is perfection. 5E isn't going to take your memories and emotions tied to that edition and that time in your life.

And yet a lot of us play other systems or multiple versions of D&D simply because we like the 'D&D' part of the game also. Not just the mechanics. So while they might internally strive for perfection for all edition players, realistically all they need to achieve is something that's 'good enough' that a variety of players can sit down and play what feels like D&D to them.

 

[gloomhound]

Thanks guys!

There is a metric ton of mind fuel in this thread so far. After all I can't recall ever hearing anyone talk about fixing chess.

I just wish I had something clever or witty to add to it.

 

[grimslade]

The base system has to be flexible but strong to support 10+ years of modular options. Good enough for the majority of players seems good enough for me. Oddly they should try for a perfectly flexible system to be good enough for a majority of players.

 

[MrGrenadine]

D&D was always quirky and many other systems were objectively better. However, the size of the fanbase has made it possible to always find a group.

This idea that other systems are objectively better is interesting to me, because I've tried a couple other RPG systems in my time, and I always come back to D&D (and now Pathfinder)--not because of the size of the fanbase, or even because of the quality of the support materials, but because I just like the mechanics better.

Classes, Races, 6 attributes, AC, hp, levels, alignment, d20+x, house rules--all the stuff that makes D&D D&D--I love that stuff.

I know everyone likes and dislikes D&D's (any edition) mechanics to varying degrees, and I'm not claiming that its the best game out there, just that its the best game for me. But all that said, I'd love to hear what specific mechanics in other RPG systems you and other folks think are objectively better?

 

[vagabundo]

If this goes as I think they want it to go, I think that the "good enough" core will be around for a long time and they will hang a lot of products from it. Many people do love DND, warts and all.

I do hope this version is wildly successful and that it does act as a unifying system. We could do with some growth in the PNP RPG business. I would like my kids and grandkids to play dnd as an active game, not just to humour their curmudgeony old Gran-Da...

 

[saskganesh]

... many other systems were objectively better.

Maybe other systems are less quirky, but I am not sure that means they are better systems. Objectively speaking.

I came back to old school D&D from a "better system" because I thought it was a better game.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I know everyone likes and dislikes D&D's (any edition) mechanics to varying degrees, and I'm not claiming that its the best game out there, just that its the best game for me. But all that said, I'd love to hear what specific mechanics in other RPG systems you and other folks think are objectively better?

Well, I don't want the thread to get sidetracked in the benefits of other systems; they all provide a different experience, sometimes which is more fun and sometimes less fun depending on my mood. I'm not sure it'd be right to say any of them were objectively better or worse.