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

[Frostmarrow]

When I say "objectively" better, what I actually mean is "looks better in theory".

There is no end to comparisons between D&D and any other game, here on ENWorld no less. Quite often D&D is found wanting.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

That's because those conversations were a bit before our time, and if the local powers that be didn't like your tone on the scroll, the banhammer was more extreme.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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.

I've got to say, you are using a strange definition of "perfect" here. A genuinely perfect D&D would perfectly appeal to the tastes of all D&D fans, regardless of preference or playstyle, such that all would enjoy the game equally without flaws. What you are talking about is something entirely different than the idea of pursuing perfection. Rather, you seem to be talking about tailoring the game towards a particular audience at the expense of others, as opposed to making sacrifices on how much the game appeals to any one audience in order to appeal to a wide number of people. That makes the rhetoric of "perfection" and "good enough" entirely inappropriate.

Honestly, even dropping the rhetoric of "perfect" vs. "good enough"... I still don't agree with you. You are arguing for compromise and stasis without the ambition required to make the game genuinely appeal to people. The goal of making the game perfectly suited to everyone is practically impossible, but is nonetheless the path the game needs to take. The fact that WotC seems quite intent to make that attempt with 5E is what impresses me the most about their vision for the game.

 

[MarkChevallier]

I've got to say, you are using a strange definition of "perfect" here. A genuinely perfect D&D would perfectly appeal to the tastes of all D&D fans, regardless of preference or playstyle, such that all would enjoy the game equally without flaws. What you are talking about is something entirely different than the idea of pursuing perfection. Rather, you seem to be talking about tailoring the game towards a particular audience at the expense of others, as opposed to making sacrifices on how much the game appeals to any one audience in order to appeal to a wide number of people. That makes the rhetoric of "perfection" and "good enough" entirely inappropriate.

I think we're actually in agreement, just perhaps I'm being unclear with my choice of words for you.

I suppose, the system you envision above, the best possible system in terms of mass-appeal and game mechanical quality, still wouldn't be the best possible system for you. Or me. Or any one particular group. It wouldn't be our perfect system, because naturally, compromises would have been made, trading off our preferences against each other, until the game was a good as it could be, while still being good enough for everyone - not turning anyone off.

We would each have house rules, if we felt strongly enough about it, and we'd have things to grumble about. But those house rules and grumbles would be pointed in different directions.

I say this because I feel a game that perfectly appealed to everyone's tastes is an impossibility.

What I'm suggesting the 5E team are doing, is aiming to build that system, a conciliatory, unifying system. And then, as others said, they'll ladel on the optional rules so you can get closer to your perfect game and I can get closer to mine. But the core game will be the same for us both.

 

[am181d]

Honestly, even dropping the rhetoric of "perfect" vs. "good enough"... I still don't agree with you. You are arguing for compromise and stasis without the ambition required to make the game genuinely appeal to people. The goal of making the game perfectly suited to everyone is practically impossible, but is nonetheless the path the game needs to take. The fact that WotC seems quite intent to make that attempt with 5E is what impresses me the most about their vision for the game.

The buzz wisdom is that "one perfect version" is a pipe dream and that companies are successful when they find the right product mix. WotC is following this methodology by producing a game with a number of options, rather than 1 specific set of options that will optimize their overall reach.

 

[SKyOdin]

The problem though with resigning yourself to a compromise that doesn't fully satisfy everyone is that it quickly becomes too easy to justify not even trying to satisfy broad ranges of fans. Trying to not turn anyone off of the game can quickly result in cutting out options that are critically important to other people. The biggest risk in alienating people isn't found in putting in stuff that they don't like, it is found in not having included the stuff that would draw them in.

For the most part, people don't get upset that there is something they don't like in the system, they get really upset only when something near and close to their hearts is removed, or is done very badly. So, in order to get a game system that appeals to everyone, you need to have everything that every gamer wants in the game, and it needs to be well put together. Of course, there is also a big difference between what people say they want, and the truly important things. The trickiest part of a game designer is finding all of these most important elements, and weaving them together into an elegant, refined whole.

Any game made by compromising between all of the disparate versions of D&D in pursuit of a D&D that is inoffensive enough to be accepted is doomed to fail. But an edition that builds upon all of them, draws upon all of their strengths and builds towards a bold new vision of D&D has at least a chance of success.

In any case, there isn't too much point to speculating about direction in these terms. If you think there needs to be a compromise of sorts, it is probably better to start proposing specifics. I admit that I can't really tell what you have in mind unless you do give some specific examples of what kind of opposing playstyles and compromises between them you are talking about.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I think we're actually in agreement, just perhaps I'm being unclear with my choice of words for you.

I suppose, the system you envision above, the best possible system in terms of mass-appeal and game mechanical quality, still wouldn't be the best possible system for you. Or me. Or any one particular group. It wouldn't be our perfect system, because naturally, compromises would have been made, trading off our preferences against each other, until the game was a good as it could be, while still being good enough for everyone - not turning anyone off.

We would each have house rules, if we felt strongly enough about it, and we'd have things to grumble about. But those house rules and grumbles would be pointed in different directions.

I say this because I feel a game that perfectly appealed to everyone's tastes is an impossibility.

What I'm suggesting the 5E team are doing, is aiming to build that system, a conciliatory, unifying system. And then, as others said, they'll ladel on the optional rules so you can get closer to your perfect game and I can get closer to mine. But the core game will be the same for us both.

Honestly, you're still doing that thing that's annoying me...

Of course a game that perfectly appeals to everyone's taste is an impossibility. Perfection is totally incompatible with reality. It always is, and always will be. That doesn't mean you should tarnish your ideal of perfection with cynicism before you've even begun the journey to reach it, or limit the scope of what perfection could possibly mean.

Honestly, a game which perfectly appeals to the taste of a single person is about as impossible as a game which perfectly appeals to the taste of everyone.

Still, "good enough" is not an ideal worth chasing. As SkyOdin says, if you limit your ideals from the get-go, it limits your vision and leads to poor compromises and lowest-common denominator thinking. This kind of thinking has lead to the kinds of "four classes, four races" proposals of an absolutely minimalistic "core" based on limiting the game to only what has appeared in every edition so far. Such a compromise would doom the game and please almost nobody. What D&D needs is an entirely new approach and entirely new ways of thinking that, by taking an out-of-the-box approach, please everyone in unexpected ways.

Anyways, I have no desire to imagine a 5E with a limited core and a large pool of optional content. I want to see a game that abandons the entire concept of core and presents concepts for everyone. 5E should not be a bad game that needs customization and supplements to fix it, it should be a great game that everyone can approach and enjoy equally. It should be a game that rejects your entire assumption that people with different preferences need different game rules.

 

[MarkChevallier]

Honestly, you're still doing that thing that's annoying me...

Well, apologies, but I really am not intending to annoy you, I'm just trying to clarify my point. If it's my point that's annoying you, well, I'm sorry, but it is what it is. We can disagree without becoming annoyed at each other, I hope?

Anyways, I have no desire to imagine a 5E with a limited core and a large pool of optional content. I want to see a game that abandons the entire concept of core and presents concepts for everyone. 5E should not be a bad game that needs customization and supplements to fix it, it should be a great game that everyone can approach and enjoy equally. It should be a game that rejects your entire assumption that people with different preferences need different game rules.

I agree, 5E shouldn't be a bad game! It should be a good game, an enjoyable game! And with the extra options, tunable to your taste.

Of course people with different preferences need different game rules to realise those preferences completely. One game, without optional rules, but everyone finding it great? There are enough raging debates here on this very forum, that I think that's just not going to happen. People have differences of opinion and taste, that's natural and healthy. These same people all used to be in the same broad tent of D&D players, and now they're not; their opinions are unlikely to change to match the system that you make, even if it's great at the things it does! Otherwise 4E, which is great at the things it does, wouldn't have been followed by a split in the playerbase. One game can't be all things to all people without options that they can select to make it work for them.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Of course people with different preferences need different game rules to realise those preferences completely.

I think we've arrived at a raw difference between our axioms of thought. I don't believe logical discourse will do much to resolve this difference. I suppose all I can do is hope that someone creates a version of D&D of such quality that it will persuade you otherwise.

Regardless, we do at least agree that custom-tailoring the game for a particular, existing audience's tastes is a bad idea. Though I still don't agree that 4E was such a game, and I probably would disagree with you on why 4E was so divisive. I doubt we even dislike it for the same reasons...

 

[Rhenny]

I think "good enough" will be acceptable as long as it is the best "good enough" possible given what DMs and Players want right now.

Since the beginning of D&D and the advent of tabletop roleplaying, DMs and Players used house rules to make their own campaigns personal and to their own liking. That will never go away.

5e should build in suggestions for house rules. How to make it "gritty" - How to focus more on using minis for tactical combats - How to get off the grid - How to speed up combats - How to create non-combat encounters that develop the story and give non-combat skills and abilities more importance - How to encourage roleplaying - and any other option/house rule that DMs and players and designers have tested.

That will make 5e the unifying edition.