D&D 5E (2014) Merwin said it better than Schwalb

[Lwaxy]

I think Mr. Merwin forgets that the audience for people who want to play *with rules* (say, in the boardgame and CCG spaces) is apparently much larger than the audience for people who want to play with story. So, we may argue that keeping the focus too much on the story is apt to limit the game. We probably need those rules-enjoying players in order to flourish.

Doubtful.

Here in Germany, and with all my Australian/Canadian players so far, story > that rules all the time. Even among the other groups, story = rules most of the time, with slight favor to story. Unless you have a game testing something out like the mythic rules for PF for one group. The rules > than story, if only slightly.

 

[Morrus]

Here is the thing. If the designers leave in something that is broken
or optimized and is blatantly obvious about it, then I am almost duty bound by role play to use it if my character is of average wits. Doubly so if my character is very smart or wise.

I would have to role play excuses for not being sensible.

Is every person over 100 IQ fit and athletic?

 

[Umbran]

As some have basically said already, why can't it be "both/and" rather than "either/or"?

Arguably, D&D is doing that right now. But it is with an essential dichotomy of Basic/non-Basic. Folks will be playing games with the same basis, but the details will differ considerably. And, I think that division may be necessary. Those who want to play rules-depth want to be more effective for having done so. That's at odds with folks who don't really want to play deep in the rules, but still be effective.

He says that many, even most, of these folks departed for computer games, so while this is a valid approach to D&D, the bulk of its adherents have departed.

I think he's wrong on their having departed. Or, not so right as it makes a difference. The gearheads are still a large enough group that they must be considered on the same level as others.

In my opinion and experience a lot of focus on story can be hugely successful, so long as it doesn't directly interfere with the rules side of it.

Yes, but I think what I said above stands. There's an essential conflict, in that a gearhead wants to be rewarded for their efforts, and that puts them at odds with folks who want to be effective in play, but not worry about the rules.

The question is not "are story and rules at odds? It is "are gearhead and non-gearhead players at odds?" You can have a lot of story for gearheads. You can't have a lot of mechanics for non-gearhead players.

 

[BryonD]

Yes, but I think what I said above stands. There's an essential conflict, in that a gearhead wants to be rewarded for their efforts, and that puts them at odds with folks who want to be effective in play, but not worry about the rules.

The question is not "are story and rules at odds? It is "are gearhead and non-gearhead players at odds?" You can have a lot of story for gearheads. You can't have a lot of mechanics for non-gearhead players.

Fair enough
But I think I could just rephrase my answer to say gearheads and non-gearheads. I think a key part of that is that non-gearheads are frequently not anti-gearheads. They very often don't mind the presence of gears so long as they are in the background. (An extreme gearhead can, of course, push the mechanics into the foreground and the you have a player - player issue)

So, Story + "gears" CAN be good for all gearheads and a large fraction of non-gearheads.
Story without "gears" has already lost the gearheads.

 

[Mercurius]

Arguably, D&D is doing that right now. But it is with an essential dichotomy of Basic/non-Basic. Folks will be playing games with the same basis, but the details will differ considerably. And, I think that division may be necessary. Those who want to play rules-depth want to be more effective for having done so. That's at odds with folks who don't really want to play deep in the rules, but still be effective.

Agreed, although I think maybe Basic/Basic+ is more accurate...or Basic/Advanced. But your "necessary division" is well framed.

Anyhow, in a way this is how 5E is a harkening back to pre-3E days: house rules were considered the norm. I remember whenever a new player joined a group, if they were experienced one of the first questions they asked was "Any house rules?" (usually right after "Where's the beer?")/

I think he's wrong on their having departed. Or, not so right as it makes a difference. The gearheads are still a large enough group that they must be considered on the same level as others.

True. Anyhow, I see as more of a spectrum - from very crunchy to very fluffy, with everyone falling somewhere along the spectrum. One could argue that some of the fluffies deparated as well, for more story-based games, and other aspects of geek culture, so it all evens out.

I think a more meaningful question for WotC, and one they clearly have been asking, is what initial presentation and basic rules is optimal to not only please long-timers, but keep new players? I like their answer so far.

 

[Pickles JG]

The whole article is a non sequitur. Anti-social optimisers who break rule systems are bad therefore D&D needs to be about stories Huh?

The thing is I don't need rules to make story based games. I need a bit of background & that's about it.
If I am using rule I would rather use robust rules that I can largely follow (including workable guidelines).

Mostly when I do not play D&D I play or run very "story based" games. EotE WFRP FATE or anything where the rules are not reliable enough to actually use. That applies to some extent to all of those except FATE which is designed for this sort of play so the adventures I run rend to have minimal interaction with the rule systems.

D&D has always been my crunchy combat heavy game. I do not remember any emphasis on Story in the 1e days. I do remember one of my friends telling me the reason he played it was because it had a huge complicated rulebook.

I am a half hearted optimiser. I choose obviously good options but I do not scour the books looking for funky combos. I like to optimise as I like to make the character my own (to some extent - obviously it's the designers too, to some extent). Of course there I can do this by characterisation but I don't need rules for that necessarily. The best characterisation is when the rules & the story elements mesh together to reinforce one another. I first got this from Runequest back in the early 80s, but 3e & especially 4e D&D let me do it too (possibly 2e - I skipped that).

People who say D&D is all about the story or the RP or the combat or the optimisation or the hanging out with your mates are doing it a disservice. It is all of those things & is diminished by the absence of or poverty in any of them.

 

[Umbran]

Anti-social optimisers who break rule systems are bad therefore D&D needs to be about stories Huh?

Stop right there. Optimizers who break rules systems are not necessarily anti-social. That connection, right there, is part of the problem that keeps us from understanding, such that we can better work with others.

I have a friend, great guy, who now runs games professionally (for the military - he does wargame scenarios for the US Navy). He's good at what he does, he loves his job, and he's a fine fellow, not anti-social in the least. But, if you put him in a game, you can expect him to find the broken bits.

Such people are simply good at what they do, and they enjoy it. They get their fun from a particular place, and others need to recognize that.

For example - my new Shadowrun campaign has a player who really gets a major kick out of playing the rules and showing off. We found a fine niche for him - decking, which nobody else in the party is really interested in. He can be a super-decker, and not have that impact anyone else's game significantly. His area of optimization is siloed away from most of the other PCs, but they get to take advantage of the results, and everyone is happy.

This is only one strategy, and it isn't always available, but these guys talking about how rules are horrible don't address that there *are* strategies we can use to manage things - they lay it all at the feet of the rules, instead of table management.

 

[Pickles JG]

Stop right there. Optimizers who break rules systems are not necessarily anti-social. That connection, right there, is part of the problem that keeps us from understanding, such that we can better work with others.

Yeah that's why I said anti social optimisers rather than just optimisers

The ones who break the game are the anti social ones who stop other people having fun. Other people hold back from egregious broken stuff or negotiate house rules or optimise support characters to let others shine.

 

[Minigiant]

Is every person over 100 IQ fit and athletic?

No, but they know their craft. They can realize obvious spell combinations. They can realize that one weapon is strictly better than another.
Even an average barbarian can tell an obviously good weapon from a bad one.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Rules won't fix broken players. People who care more about exploitation or "being right" than they care about their fellow players having fun can move on to another group, IMO.

Also, I do not want the designers spending 95% of their time focused on exploits that only affect 5% of the playerbase. I'd rather them spend 95% of their time on the game that impacts 95% of the players. If you've got your design team spending all their time ensuring they have a 6 sigma level or accuracy, they aren't spending that same time coming up with cool stuff. In other words, just because you personally think a rule is broken doesn't mean everyone else does and the game is horribly designed.

So yeah, if given the choice between four classes and four races that are perfectly balanced all the way up to level 20, or a dozen classes and a dozen races to choose from where there are exploits that a determined person can find if they try hard enough, I know which option I'd prefer.