So I was involved in another thread, and thinking about a topic that often comes up ... like, all the time. So instead of inserting this into that thread (and thus derailing it) I thought I'd create a separate thread and share some thoughts on a topic that has a habit of continually popping up at enworld, in a multitude of aspects.
I think of it in a number of ways, but the best, macro-level way to view it is to think of the old Monty Python skit from the movie Meaning of Life. It's Mr. (Monsieur) Creosote. If you haven't seen it before, I'd recommend viewing it; it's quick google away. If you're at work, be aware that it has simulated vomit.
Here's the premise along with a link to the video. Do you need spoilers for Monty Python on enworld?????
The basic premise is very simple; person is eating. At a certain point, they are overfull. They are offered one more thing to eat. The famous "wafer-thin mint." They know they shouldn't have it. And yet, with much coaxing, they do. They eat the wafer-thin mint. And then they explode.
Now, let's get into the real thesis of this piece. Enworld (blessed be its name) is a great forum for discussing nerd culture generally, RPGs specifically, D&D even more specifically, and 5e at the most specific. There are numerous, wonderful conversations on enworld about what people want to see in 5e. What classes, subclasses, campaign settings, new rules, new crunchbooks, new art directions, whatever. This is a board for enthusiasts, and, well, we enthuse.
That said, this is also the internet. Which means that you can't post anything (for example, "The sun is hot") without someone, or multiple someones, disagreeing with you ("Yeah, but is it hot in an absolute sense- I mean, think about some quasars, dude..." or "How do you know the sun is really hot? Have you been there?" or "Since we are all just running through our lives in a vast AI-directed simulation, then there is no real heat, ROKO'S BASILISK!").
Which means that on any given thread about the direction of 5e, or D&D, there will be people who disagree. You want to add a class? They don't want it added. You want official support for magic item prices? Nope. You want a Spelljammer expansion? No Space Hamsters for this guy. You want a PHB2 filled with more crunch than all the boxes of Cap'n Crunch ever made? Not for my elderly gums. You get the idea.
And as the number of posts in any given thread about adding something officially to 5e increases, there will inevitably be a post with language similar to the following (I am not quoting any particular post):
Please note I am simplifying and making the argument generic, but we've all seen the variations on it. Essentially, if you don't like something in 5e, you don't have to use it, therefore any thing you don't like, you need to be silent about since it can be added without affecting you.
Sidebar: My focus is not about homebrew, and is certainly not about those threads where people are congregating to discuss how to effectively make something or what they'd like to see in an official version (so-called + threads). Nor am I advocating threadcra**ing. This is solely related to conversations about adding things, officially, to D&D, and whether additions are truly "costless" and do not affect other people, given the prominence of this argument. Finally, I do not claim to be always right, and I am using this thread solely as a conversation starter on this topic both so I can point to it in the future as needed, and so other threads about adding things don't get bogged down in this argument.
A. Design Basics.
Let's start with a general idea. Good design sometimes means less. Most people are familiar with some of the following quotes: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Simple can be harder than complex: You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple."
Steve Jobs
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius- and a lot of courage- to move in the opposite direction."
E.F. Schumacher
Now, not everyone has the same aesthetic. Some people prefer sleek Scandinavian modernism, others prefer overstuffed homey bric-a-brac. But the idea of limits being important isn't just relevant to design in general, we see it in language as well; for example, what is an adjective but a word that limits a noun? Before you had a house, but after you have a red house, you can no longer have a house of any other color. As we all know, specificity (in this case, limits) is the soul of narrative.
I don't want to go too deep into design aesthetics and/or the proper use of adjectives, but the general concept should be apparent. Sometimes, good design requires less, sometimes it requires limits. Additions for the sake of additions are the bane of thoughtful design. Before moving to the topic of 5e and RPGs, this should be apparent when you think about any physical object; if you have a car, for example, you need to make choices about what to add, and where. Good design requires intelligent choices.
B. RPGs and Design
Now, I know what you're thinking. "Lowkey13, stop smoking/drinking/snorting that stuff. We all know that RPGs aren't cars. You can only put so many cupholders in a car. You can only make those tailfins so high. But there is no limit at all to the number of classes, or campaign settings, or books. You aren't the boss of me, and you can't stop the infinite proliferation of awesome until I get my Actuary Class printed in the PHB3."
This is certainly true. I will stipulate, here and now, that RPGs are not cars. However, RPGs are designed. Sometimes well, sometimes poorly. This means that they will contain commonalities due to the design; there will be conscious design choices related to levels of complexity; uniformity of art (or not); how various systems interact within the RPG; how modular the RPG is overall and how modular various subsystems are; use of different dice and systems for resolution, role of players vis-a-vis DMG; ease of modification and/or homebrew; and so on. The key, here, is that the more modern trend in RPGs in to reduce the overall amount of rule complexity and to use more unified resolution systems; in that sense, 5e is certainly more modern than its early predecessors. But unlike some RPGs (PF and many others excluded), 5e is also somewhat modular, in the sense that it is fairly easy to modify, homebrew, and add to.
So, if 5e is easy to add to, and there is design space to add to it, why not just add everything possible to 5e? Honestly, who cares if there are 500 more splat books, and 30 more classes, and rules for prestige classes, and the PHB3 "Play as a Gelatinous Cube"?
Well, that gets into the next few issues.
C. 5e Design
I would posit that 5e is designed to be simple and easy to pick up for beginners, and to be easy-to-play (in terms of time commitments) for experienced players. That is the core strength of 5e. That the game is not so much in the rules (a la 3e, or even older editions) but in the unfolding game. It does not offer an abundance of complexity in the rules, and the interest in the game is supposed to be maintained through play and adventure, not through new crunch. I think that this is very much a conscious choice, and that the slow rollout of new crunch (usually paired with an AP or setting) reflects this. There is no desire to have a new crunch book, a PHB2, or to force DMs and players to understand a slew of new rules.
Another aspect of this is that as you continue to add new features to TTRPGs (like 5e), you are continuing to come up with new rules and new "meta-rules" (aka, rules that break other rules). All these rules have to interact with all the rules already in place. Not to mention, all the optional rules. Call this the "3e problem" (heh). As you continue to add (grow, bloat) the game, these interactions increase in ways until eventually, well, you spend most of your time arguing about the rules (and/or munchkining).
There are a number of design ways around this. One is to sandbox certain features (bounded accuracy is kind of a way of doing that!), another is to prevent to much design bloat (restrict classes and design within a more restricted space- the subclasses), another is to rigorously test, another is to just not have a lot of rules (more narrative game play), another would be to institute DM-side controls (such as Core+1) and so on. But this is always a concern that has repeated itself in D&D in past editions.
D. Examples of the Past
Another issue that comes up is examining the trajectory of past editions. For example, these statements have been made about prior editions:
2e: Too many campaign settings were produced and supported at the same time, fracturing the player base.
3e: Too much crunch, too many classes, prestige classes, etc. "broke" the game and made it hard to run.
4e: Consumer confusion about the core rules occurred due to rapid proliferation of core books.
Regardless of the absolute truth of those statements, I think that people hear them often enough that, to some extent, they become received wisdom. Certainly it would appear that 5e's designers, to date, have observed those issues. Campaign setting releases have been sporadic; they have released APs that reference settings (Ravenloft in CoS, Greyhawk in Saltmarsh), but have only released two actual settings qua settings in five years- Ravnica (to attract MtG fans) and Eberron. And they continue to pursue a kinda FR, kinda generic strategy.
They have released exactly one (1) new class. Tied into Eberron. They continue to solely use the subclass as the design focus for experimentation.
They have not released any new "core" books; there remain the Core 3 just as they have been since release. The new "splat books" (VgTM, MToF, XGTE) have differentiated names, are clearly optional, and contain modest (at best) variations on what we already have.
E. Opportunity Cost & Market
I will finish the general analysis section by noting the biggest issue with official additions to the game; opportunity cost and market. No addition is costless; adding Eberron as a setting now meant, for example, that another setting wasn't put in. Companies have limited resources, time, and employees to design and playtest products; as such, there is no such thing as a "costless," official, supported product. Finally, there will always be concerns about what the market wants; famously, 5e looks to have things that no one has a strong, negative reaction to. I don't know if that is a good idea or bad idea, but it is a philosophy. Put another way, just because you (and other people) want an addition, doesn't mean that the market wants it, or that it is the best use of limited resources.
Conclusion
This is where I try to explain why I dislike statements of the type I referenced above so much, and why I started with M. Creosote. I am a firm believer that everyone should get what they want (although in some cases, I do that because they don't know what they're about to get .... heh). And enworld should always be a good place for people to discuss the additions that they want to have in 5e.
That said, when there is a thread where people are discussing whether or not to add something officially, it does a disservice to other people to say that adding something never, ever, affects other people and can only be good. People have all sorts of reasons to want things in (or not in) the game on an official basis, and demanding that something be in solely because it increases your fun without acknowledging that it will have an impact on other aspects of the game is the same as demanding that M. Creosote keep eating food. Sure, maybe it's just an appetizer, or maybe it's a wafer-thin mint.
Final disclaimer to a very long piece: I think that there is probably a taxonomy of bars to be cleared in 5e for arguing for official inclusion; for example, a new AP or magic item is trivial, a new race slightly higher, a new subclass a smidgen higher, a new setting higher still, a new class much higher, and a massive expansion of core mechanics (a PHB2, for example) would be pretty much at the top. But YMMV.
And I also wanted to say that this isn't specific to any single request, it's just that I've seen this exact point made across numerous threads, in everything from magic item shops, to new classes, to re-working the sorcerer in the core rules, and so on. I love seeing people make great points, on the merits, for the things that they love (so long as the things that the love aren't Paladins).
Thank you for the joyful read, @lowkey13. I'm a huge advocate for less being more, simplicity being a worthy goal, and no being a worthy response (where appropriate).
