D&D (2024) In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books

[Oofta]

Gonna be perfectly honest, Crawford concluding that people don't want to move away from existing 5e based on the stuff they tested and didn't think people would accept is....not encouraging. Like at all. That's blatantly bad statistical inference. It would be like presuming that, because you put out a collection cup for rainwater on days where there was no expected precipitation three times, that means that it rains if and only if the forecast says it will.

Instead, the correct statistical inference here is that those specific changes were not popular. And it's really not hard to see why--a number of them futzed about with deep and fundamental mechanics like critical hits or the like, rather than addressing any of the far more relevant areas of 5e's rules that could have been updated.

The fact that 5E is the best selling version ever is all that really matters. They don't, and can't, know all the reasons behind it. Nobody can. All they can do is hope they don't upset the apple cart and continue to have a successful game. It's impossible to have perfect market research, all they can do is poke around a bit. Expecting anything else is folly.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The fact that 5E is the best selling version ever is all that really matters. They don't, and can't, know all the reasons behind it. Nobody can. All they can do is hope they don't upset the apple cart and continue to have a successful game. It's impossible to have perfect market research, all they can do is poke around a bit. Expecting anything else is folly.

Especially considering every single time someone says that X thing HAS to happen to the game to make it better, there is invariably another person for whom that X thing would make it appreciably worse. There is no confirmed right or wrong... it's all just trying to get a feel of what is wanted by people overall and then the designers trying to design the game under all the auspices they have hanging over them, both internally and externally.

 

[Umbran]

Booms??? Or books...?

I started to think there was some new thing called "booms" going on.

To quote Commander Ivonova - "No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow."

 

[Meech17]

There's always going to be a clash when we apply the term "tank" to a TTRPG character. It was popularized as MMORPG terminology by Everquest and later World of Warcraft, and in that framework a tank's job is as much about managing aggro and enemy placement as it is simple damage mitigation. So when it gets used in a TTRPG context, there's immediately a clash in expectations.

A TTRPG high durability front liner usually doesn't have the control elements a MMORPG tank does. They tried that with 4e, and it pops up a little bit still in 5e, but it's not common. Instead, 5e mostly follows the older D&D legacy of the meatshield. The warrior who stands on the front line and holds their ground, while the archers and casters huddle in safety behind them.

So in the sense of being a good meatshield, the UA Monk definitely does a much better job of it than it used to. The actual play reports talk at length about how their improved defensive options let them hold the front line instead of having to be a light skirmisher like the Rogue.

The monk in Everquest was a really interesting class, as it wasn't a great tank, but because it had some tanky abilities, and evasiveness in place of AC, monks could often back-up tank. A monster turns their attention off of the Tank and onto the squishy DPS, the monk could usually be counted on to quickly step in and take the heat, keeping the DPS alive, and surviving long enough themselves for the Tank to take back control.

I think the D&D monk can fit a similar role. Primarily being a damage dealer, but in times of need they have the ability to move around the battlefield better than most. They can go from being front of the pack, punching the boss in the head one round, and then next round slip to the back of the group to help protect the wizard from the wave of minions that just showed up.

 

[billd91]

Honestly, there should be a tanking option for monks, possibly incorporating a strength-based monk option instead of dex-based. For any inspiration, check out Invincible Shaolin. It's a great kung fu movie.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

People use "tank" pretty imprecisely now

This is flatly untrue.

Most people discussing D&D and other games use "tank" far more precisely now than they did say, 10 or 15 years ago.

This is Chris Perkins using it imprecisely and inaccurately, not "people". Whilst a Monk can be played as a tank, it's unconventional, and unless the changes in 2024 for Monks are bigger than we thought, not something you could easily do.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The fact that 5E is the best selling version ever is all that really matters. They don't, and can't, know all the reasons behind it. Nobody can. All they can do is hope they don't upset the apple cart and continue to have a successful game. It's impossible to have perfect market research, all they can do is poke around a bit. Expecting anything else is folly.

Is that you, Bakunin?

This is easily the most extreme nihilist take I've ever read re: selling a game!

They can absolutely do more than "hope they don't upset the apple cart" or "poke around a bit"! They could do significantly more in-depth research, they could gather different kinds of data from what they do, they could have considered bigger or even small changes than they actually presented, and they could very certainly take a better approach than "0.01% of audience has a 70% approval with zero nuance of this thing" (it wasn't 0.01% but it's down there). They don't want to because they're risk-averse and also don't seem to have a high opinion of their own talent. That's not necessarily a totally bad thing, but it is a specific thing, and it's not the only way it could be.

I say "they" but I'm not convinced Perkins or Crawford actually could. I mean, god love 'em, but I think they're pretty much the definition of "milquetoast" when it comes to game design. It's like, they're the Coldplay of game designers. Coldplay sold a lot of records! They're boring, safe, unimaginative, and their biggest hits aren't really that great. But they fill stadiums and they sell records, what more do you want, you unreasonable Ruin Explorer?

You see that here even - Perkins says not "trying to prove himself as a game designer", and it's like, well good thing because you're basically just coasting on the design Mearls, Crawford, Thompson and Lee did back in 2014! Why would we think you, a man who is primarily an editor, is trying to prove themselves as a game designer?

 

[Scribe]

 

[Hussar]

Really? No one dropped this yet?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I felt like it might be a bit mean but then I read the article properly, and it's obvious Chris Perkins is operating on "average forum poster" levels of game design ideas, not like "game designer" levels of game design, like for example, Chris Perkins says:

Speaking frankly, [and] this is my own personal opinion, 12 classes is actually a lot," Perkins says. "If I were redesigning, if I could go back to 2012 to when we were talking about fifth edition for the first time, I would probably put a strong case forward that we could actually do with less classes in the core game. You know, keep the choices simple. Because when you're asking somebody to choose between a Sorcerer and a Wizard, to the untrained eye, it's not clear what the difference is until you start to drill down and you realize where they get their power from and how their spell-casting works. When you look at it superficially, they seem pretty much the same. And you know, what is the difference between a Barbarian and a Fighter? A Barbarian could almost be a subclass [for a] Fighter if we were designing this game from scratch.

Welcome to ill-considered ideas island - it's got a vast population of total randos talking about stuff they don't understand! I'm often one of them too! Also good thing that's a personal opinion buddy because I'm very sure Mearls didn't share it and pretty sure Crawford doesn't.

I'm not sure why they're even talking to Perkins, honestly, about this. It's rather odd.