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

[MarkChevallier]

But I'm not willing to put up with what is essentially a poorly designed game, and that is what D&D has been for the last few editions (Or maybe every edition. I wouldn't know since I haven't played the older ones).

From this, it sounds like you didn't enjoy 3E or 4E, and haven't played the previous editions. Maybe you don't like D&D? It's not for everyone. Or can you see, when you play the game, glimpses of something better, something you want to be fun, but the game keeps tripping you up?

If I may pry, how long have you played the various editions for?

The reason why I ask, if you played them for sufficiently long that it was clear there was something there you liked, why not work with the system to get what you're looking for? Throw a few house rules at it? If on the other hand, you just played them once and twice, and thought I like the idea of a heroic fantasy game, but this isn't good enough, it might be that D&D just isn't your cup of tea. Or coffee, if you're American.

 

[TwinBahamut]

From this, it sounds like you didn't enjoy 3E or 4E, and haven't played the previous editions. Maybe you don't like D&D? It's not for everyone. Or can you see, when you play the game, glimpses of something better, something you want to be fun, but the game keeps tripping you up?

If I may pry, how long have you played the various editions for?

The reason why I ask, if you played them for sufficiently long that it was clear there was something there you liked, why not work with the system to get what you're looking for? Throw a few house rules at it? If on the other hand, you just played them once and twice, and thought I like the idea of a heroic fantasy game, but this isn't good enough, it might be that D&D just isn't your cup of tea. Or coffee, if you're American.

I'm American, but I don't drink coffee or tea. Orange juice, maybe.

The thing is, I do like D&D. The basic game, of getting a bunch of people around a table and hacking your way through a campaign, is indeed a lot of fun. I have not had as much chance to play it as I would like, to be honest, but I've been playing the game since I got my start with a very late 2E adventure set (3E was out by the time I moved on from the adventure set to the real game). I've even enjoyed a few really good long term campaigns (a good 3E Eberron one and a wacky Alternity one). But it really is the case that the game rules seem to extort unnecessary taxes on the fun that a genuinely well-designed game would not.

Still, I'd rather not rely on using house rules to try to fix my problems with the game, when I can instead raise my issues and hope that the guys at WotC can do it with 5E. After all, despite saying that 3E and 4E were poorly designed, I know that D&D has some great designers. I also know that most of my major problems of the game can be solved with some effort and good game design. Once that is done, I can more easily devote my energy to house-ruling the game to fit my taste, rather than house-ruling it to even work in the first place.

 

[Bluenose]

Not to be argumentative, because those sound like great games, but I was looking more for what kind of mechanics folks thought were objectively better in other systems. Your examples both seem to hinge on your preferred play style for "Matter of Britain" games and campaigns set in Glorantha, and how that preferred play style is supported by Pendragon or Runequest.

As for me, I wouldn't agree that dealing with "Passions" and "Traits" is objectively better than just RP-ing those moments.

Well, if those moments are "just role-played" (which by the way I think a very good thing to encourage) without that having a mechanical effect in the game, then not RPing those moments has the same effect.

But, if you want mechanics that are objectively superior, I think you have to accept that this applies for a certain type of game anyway. For instance, escalating hit points aren't something that work so well if you want a game where someone, no matter how competent and skilled (high level in D&D terms) is still vulnerable to a single lucky (or unlucky) hit. Runequest hit locations and low hit point totals mean that an enormously skilled warrior can still be dropped by one slingshot - see Conan for details - and make combat a dangerous business rather than what sometimes happens in D&D, where getting into another fight can be a casual matter. This doesn't make Runequest objectively better for all situations, but it does give the players and GM a different set of tools to play with and that is more suitable for games played with a different tone.

 

[BryonD]

D&D is objectively worse at it than Runequest.

I would completely concede this point with regard to D&D.
I'd challenge that the D20 system itself is highly adaptable to meet the goal you have in mind.

Not that Runequest may not already be so close to perfect that there is any reason to bother. But D&D is a specific build based on a fundamental system that has a lot more flexibility.

The 3E version of D&D gained value from this because just as the underlying system was highly flexible, every home game could wildly differ from pure D&D in whatever manner the players wanted.

I think that tends to get lost in the conversation. Fans of 3E are often praising significantly different things from each other. And it is a testament to the quality of the underlying system that it supported that diversity of play styles and experiences.

 

[Umbran]

Because this quoted me, it feels a bit like a sideways insult, to be honest...

Since I have made the same basic comment in response to others, no, it isn't directed at you in particular.

Personally, I don't think being picky or being unwilling to compromise has anything to do with complaints that 3E or 4E are not good enough. The simple truth is that 3E and 4E have all kinds of clear complaints you can make about them. They have obvious, glaring flaws.

They have weaknesses, yes. But so did 1e and 2e, and OD&D, and Basic. One can easily argue that 1e and 2e's flaws were notably worse that those of 3e and 4e. Strange, though, how people had fun with those games for *decades*, despite the flaws.

Discussion about those games always leads back to those flaws not because people have different styles or because they are picky, but because they really are genuine problems that could stand to be improved. Good games simply don't have those kinds of issues.

Oh, really? I double-dog dare you to name a game that *nobody* here will say doesn't have significant, genuine problems.

I don't buy it. If there were such a paragon of design perfection, with no "genuine problems" that could stand improvement, it would by now have overtaken D&D (and Pathfinder, as it still carries most of 3e's basic flaws) as the dominant game in the market. We communicate too much for such a thing to remain secret.

Ergo, no such game, beyond improvement, exists. Doubly so, seeing as "genuine problem" is not an objective truth, but in the eye of the beholder.

Instead, I say to you that if you go looking for flaws, you will find them. The question is how much you allow those flaws to get under your skin, how much you concentrate on them.

I submit that, with a decent group of people, there are actually few games that are so abysmally bad that you can't have a good time with them. And, conversely, there's no ruleset so good that the game cannot be ruined by the people at the table. The players matter more than the rules. IMHO, at least.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Since I have made the same basic comment in response to others, no, it isn't directed at you in particular.

All I can say is that it comes across as rude and dismissive to me. And being rude and dismissive just gets worse the more people you address it to, not better.

They have weaknesses, yes. But so did 1e and 2e, and OD&D, and Basic. One can easily argue that 1e and 2e's flaws were notably worse that those of 3e and 4e. Strange, though, how people had fun with those games for *decades*, despite the flaws.

There is a very broad scale between the impossible ideal of perfect and the opposite extreme of "so bad nobody will ever like it". Somewhere within that range is D&D, and in my book it is a little too far on the bad end of the scale. Not so far that it is unplayable or even unfun, but far enough that it is meaningful to complain about. Certainly far enough that it costs the game sales due to disillusioned players.

Every edition sheds players as the length of the edition wears on. Ultimately, having fun with the game for a while doesn't mean you'll be able to ignore its flaws and enjoy the game indefinitely.

Oh, really? I double-dog dare you to name a game that *nobody* here will say doesn't have significant, genuine problems.

Sure, everything has problems. Even Chess and Go do. Of course, the degree of the problems those games suffer is nothing close to the severity of some of D&D's classic problems.

I don't buy it. If there were such a paragon of design perfection, with no "genuine problems" that could stand improvement, it would by now have overtaken D&D (and Pathfinder, as it still carries most of 3e's basic flaws) as the dominant game in the market. We communicate too much for such a thing to remain secret.

Ergo, no such game, beyond improvement, exists. Doubly so, seeing as "genuine problem" is not an objective truth, but in the eye of the beholder.

Instead, I say to you that if you go looking for flaws, you will find them. The question is how much you allow those flaws to get under your skin, how much you concentrate on them.

I submit that, with a decent group of people, there are actually few games that are so abysmally bad that you can't have a good time with them. And, conversely, there's no ruleset so good that the game cannot be ruined by the people at the table. The players matter more than the rules. IMHO, at least.

Of course there is no game that is beyond improvement. Improvement is an eternal process. I don't see how that logic justifies an attitude which condemns those that complain about problems and ignores the need for improvement. And that is basically what you are doing.

D&D has problems. It needs improvement. You admit so yourself right here. So why is the game itself beyond reproach, and why must we instead only complain about players? Even when some of the problems I'm referring to are widely recognized among players to the extent they've triggered a massive split in the fanbase? The problems with 3E that attracted fans to 4E were quite bad, and are not due to problem players. The problems that caused many Pathfinder fans to be repulsed by 4E are quite bad, and are not caused by problem players. Is it so wrong to ask for a game that addresses both sets of problems?

Honestly, this is not an issue of conflicting gamestyles, if you ask me. I honestly believe that 4E-loyalists and 4E-detractors can play together in the same game and enjoy themselves, because they are all people who love D&D for what it is. I believe that a 5E can exist which can address those genuine, real concerns on both sides. All it takes is accepting the idea that, when both camps complain about the other game, they are actually correct in their complaints, and that it is indeed possible to address those complaints.

Also, as a side note, I've said that I've played games that are good enough to not merit significant complaint. I never said I've played tabletop RPGs that are of that quality. Because I really have never seen the latter, even though I have seen the former.

 

[dagger]

Its actually much simpler. If 5e is not 'good enough' in the direction me and my group like we will just not play it (or spend money on it). We will just keep playing 1e/Pathfinder and they are more than 'good enough' already.

 

[Hassassin]

Sure, everything has problems. Even Chess and Go do. Of course, the degree of the problems those games suffer is nothing close to the severity of some of D&D's classic problems.

... In your opinion.

If you count "being boring", I know plenty of people who think Chess and Go suffer much worse problems than D&D.

(I'm not one of them.)

 

[darkwing]

D&D was always broken. Let's keep it that way!

(that was sarcasm in case you couldn't tell)