D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[clearstream]

I disagree. The survey had them keep restarting design over and over and over so they never got to fully test Tier 3 and Tier 4 because they keep changing Tier 1 & 2.

There were still major revisions in the mechanics of Tier 1 & 2 back in late 2013 and those playtest versions don't look like the eventually published game.

Generally speaking, 99% of your audience will play the first part of your game, and 1% of your audience will play the last part. Therefore skillful design direction deploys greater effort toward the first part of the game than the last.

If you reflect on it, restarting the design over and over means they were mitigating luck: they created and tested multiple options, rather than hoping to luck out on whatever they happened to design first.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I disagree. The survey had them keep restarting design over and over and over so they never got to fully test Tier 3 and Tier 4 because they keep changing Tier 1 & 2.

There were still major revisions in the mechanics of Tier 1 & 2 back in late 2013 and those playtest versions don't look like the eventually published game.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion. That was not what I was observing. The design converged to the eventual full release.

 

[clearstream]

I respectfully disagree with your assertion. That was not what I was observing. The design converged to the eventual full release.

I agree with you. Intentional product design practices emphasise divergence (generate options) and convergence (filter them by your success criteria). We see this practice continued in Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Minigiant]

I respectfully disagree with your assertion. That was not what I was observing. The design converged to the eventual full release.

I agree with you. Intentional product design practices emphasise divergence (generate options) and convergence (filter them by your success criteria). We see this practice continued in Unearthed Arcana.

I didn't say the design didn't converge. I said that the design converged late and there wasn't enough time for refinement of 20 levels of play by the time they determined what was in and what was core.

That's why it was released with some of the things 5e is criticized for. By the time they got a skeleton that most playtesters agreeed with, they had less than a year to design the subsystems, spells, subclasses, advice, options, etc, etc. Most of the 5e details were filled in 6-10 months before the PHB was published. It's the same "they really needed another year" thing like 4e.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I didn't say the design didn't converge. I said that the design converged late and there wasn't enough time for refinement of 20 levels of play by the time they determined what was in and what was core.

That's why it was released with some of the things 5e is criticized for. By the time they got a skeleton that most playtesters agreeed with, they had less than a year to design the subsystems, spells, subclasses, advice, options, etc, etc. Most of the 5e details were filled in 6-10 months before the PHB was published. It's the same "they really needed another year" thing like 4e.

Maybe both had needed some more time. 4e however also needed a public playtest, so that they had known that the design paradigms wouls be refused by a big number of players.
A system like 4e essentials could have won the market over or better not lost such a big part of it.

 

[clearstream]

I didn't say the design didn't converge. I said that the design converged late and there wasn't enough time for refinement of 20 levels of play by the time they determined what was in and what was core.

Commercial projects typically have finite investment. At the same time, the cost of settling high-level play is exponentially greater than low-level (due to the vastly greater number of permutations). The success of the edition is a testimony to the design director making the right call... i.e. focusing on the first few tiers.

That's why it was released with some of the things 5e is criticized for. By the time they got a skeleton that most playtesters agreeed with, they had less than a year to design the subsystems, spells, subclasses, advice, options, etc, etc. Most of the 5e details were filled in 6-10 months before the PHB was published. It's the same "they really needed another year" thing like 4e.

You always need another year

For me, the real error in 5e's design direction for high-level play was that they continued the ideological commitment D&D seems to have to a demigod tier. I think they should have looked at E6 and tailed off the absolute power ramp (e.g. capped ability scores at 18, capped HP growth) and focused on judicious breadthening of viable strategies. That's where I would fault the high-level game design. What they attempted (for high-level play) wasn't doable to a high enough standard without vastly greater investment.

 

[Minigiant]

Commercial projects typically have finite investment. At the same time, the cost of settling high-level play is exponentially greater than low-level (due to the vastly greater number of permutations). The success of the edition is a testimony to the design director making the right call... i.e. focusing on the first few tiers.


You always need another year

For me, the real error in 5e's design direction for high-level play was that they continued the ideological commitment D&D seems to have to a demigod tier. I think they should have looked at E6 and tailed off the absolute power ramp (e.g. capped ability scores at 18, capped HP growth) and focused on judicious breadthening of viable strategies. That's where I would fault the high-level game design. What they attempted (for high-level play) wasn't doable to a high enough standard without vastly greater investment.

Part of the reason why I say some of it wasn't purposeful design is that some of the residual stuff was finalized after the playtest or very very late. Like the reason for so many wonky subclasses in early 5e was because subclasses weren't finalized as a thing until Fall 2013. And feats were require and in trees before then. So the whole class feature system, subclass system and design for Tier 1-4 had to be redone in 6 months in the last few packets. And proficiency was just being applied to all classes equally then. And if the casses weren't done, then then monsters and obstacles weren't done either.

5e was just a list of feats, class features, monsters, spells, and advantage/disadvantage 10 months before the PHB was published.

As a procrastinator, I know what rushing out a product and it ending up looking like what the customer ordered looks like.

5e had a load of luck. XGTE and TCOE displays that the outside was just pretty enough for the zeitgiest to accept it that there was time go back and fix the guts to match something closer to what the community really wanted.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Part of the reason why I say some of it wasn't purposeful design is that some of the residual stuff was finalized after the playtest or very very late. Like the reason for so many wonky subclasses in early 5e was because subclasses weren't finalized as a thing until Fall 2013. And feats were require and in trees before then. So the whole class feature system, subclass system and design for Tier 1-4 had to be redone in 6 months in the last few packets. And proficiency was just being applied to all classes equally then. And if the casses weren't done, then then monsters and obstacles weren't done either.

5e was just a list of feats, class features, monsters, spells, and advantage/disadvantage 10 months before the PHB was published.

As a procrastinator, I know what rushing out a product and it ending up looking like what the customer ordered looks like.

5e had a load of luck. XGTE and TCOE displays that the outside was just pretty enough for the zeitgiest to accept it that there was time go back and fix the guts to match something closer to what the community really wanted.

I don't deny that circumstances were lucky. But the design was based on the playtest and not on luck.
Even if it was rushed out a bit in the end (hello ranger!), they knew what to rush out.

4e was a very good product without any target audience (or a very small one... me for example). People who liked 4e liked it because of its desogm and hated the compromises made in essentials. Everyone else was already lost and could not be won over to anything that looks like 4e anaymore. Which was actually a hindrance in designing 5e.

5e used most parts of the playtest to gauge what the audience wants. They delivered. Now, 10 years into the game, they have the chance to file of rough edges. And maybe add a few 4e elements without disguiise, because people who play now might not even know about 4e.

 

[clearstream]

Part of the reason why I say some of it wasn't purposeful design is that some of the residual stuff was finalized after the playtest or very very late. Like the reason for so many wonky subclasses in early 5e was because subclasses weren't finalized as a thing until Fall 2013. And feats were require and in trees before then. So the whole class feature system, subclass system and design for Tier 1-4 had to be redone in 6 months in the last few packets. And proficiency was just being applied to all classes equally then. And if the casses weren't done, then then monsters and obstacles weren't done either.

I took the time to read a number of the glowing testimonials that a vast number of players have written on Amazon. So that goes beyond just considering that 5e core has the most, and most positively skewed, ratings of any RPG on Amazon (second is Call of Cthulhu), to reading what folk say about why they love the game.

I found themes like creative expression repeatedly mentioned, and on the other hand, the kinds of things that folk with deep knowledge of games here on Enworld criticise basically do not feature.

5e had a load of luck. XGTE and TCOE displays that the outside was just pretty enough for the zeitgiest to accept it that there was time go back and fix the guts to match something closer to what the community really wanted.

I agree with you that XGTE and TCOE express what the designers realised once the game was live would better capture their intent (and in a few cases, the evolution of their intent as their audience evolved.) TCOE ranger options are a good example, as are some of the monk and rogue options.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Completely agreed. 4e launched at least a full year too soon, it needed heavy adjustment to its presentation, the SC rules were sadly half-baked (mostly because they were something super new for D&D in general),

this is one of the reasons I am mad about the 5e we got. A fixed updated 4e is so badly needed. It had so much promise and too many where thrown out instead of fixed for 5e