D&D General RPG Theory and D&D...and that WotC Survey

[Oofta]

And that's totally fair and a perfectly reasonable discussion to have. I can completely get behind that.

But, where the problem generally occurs is that you are advocating a specific view - what works at your table - and in many cases people aren't arguing that. When someone says, "Hey, 5e doesn't really support exploration very well", they don't mean that you can't do exploration. They don't mean that the DM can't make it work. They mean exactly what they say - 5e mechanics (as in the system of 5e, not the game which is system+table) don't have a lot of heft when it comes to exploration.

When you try to push for game (system+table) it's very difficult not to see it as advocating a very specific playsteyle. Just because someone says that the system doesn't support something very well doesn't mean that they automatically want to rewrite everything, or that they cannot make it work. What is being said though, is a simple truth - the system doesn't support X. And, if the rules are silent on X, then that's just true. You cannot claim that a system supports something that it doesn't actually have any support for.

Now, you can talk about how system+table works for you, but, I generally find that a lot less useful because there are just too many things that are unarticulated. I don't play at your table. I don't play with your players. What works for you at your table isn't necessarily something that will help me. It might, but, generally, no it won't. And, frequently we see people simply blow off problems with claims that "well, I don't have this problem, so there's no problem with the system". And around and around it goes.

I guess my basic point is, it is always very, very useful to be absolutely crystal clear that you aren't actually talking about the system. It would save a LOT of back and forth in conversations because you're simply talking past people.

So when discussing the game we can never discuss how it's actually played. In addition, I was answering a very specific question "Wouldn't the essence of a thing be the same for everyone, even if the specific permutations of their lived experience of it are different?"

So no, I don't think the essence of the thing, how the game is actually played from one table to the next is different.

But I get it. Anytime I say anything about my game, I'm not only wrong but somehow actively harming the conversation. Right.

 

[Campbell]

The maxim of that notion is something I've seen plenty of fellow greyhairs espouse--right up until it comes back to mean them.

4e fan present and accounted for. I just believe that creatives need autonomy to actually create and take risks. I disagreed with the fan entitlement I saw when 4e launched and I do not feel any different about it today. Wizards was under no obligation to ask me about the things I liked about 4e or to design the game in a way that fits my tastes. I think they made the right decision for the project they wanted to create.

 

[Umbran]

Intended ironically. A complaint was that an age segment in NA was omitted. Everyone not in NA was also omitted.

Okay, fair. Tone is hard to get in text. Thanks for the clarification.

Which was the more egregious fault? Could the answer be - neither?

Given that my position is that it was a legitimate choice in the first place, I don't think there's a fault there at all, so, yeah.

 

[Umbran]

But I get it. Anytime I say anything about my game, I'm not only wrong but somehow actively harming the conversation. Right.

So, you've had a bad interaction. This is going to what? Make it better? Come on, dude.

 

[Umbran]

So when discussing the game we can never discuss how it's actually played.

When discussing the game, we need to note what is in the text, and what is at the table. If you just glom them together indiscriminately, too much goes unsaid for it to be useful to anyone else.

 

[Umbran]

I would say that there is a discernible designer ethos toward service in many studios. A feeling among the designers that they do owe their players something. And an appreciation that their players in return do not owe them anything. That players engage or disengage, criticise or praise, only on the merits of their work.

Sure. But ethos and duty are not the same.

And, by the way, in that position, the players then do owe the designers something in return - a bit of respect for their effort and work, even if the work product isn't to your liking. If such an ethos is not met with respect, the situation becomes one of toxic entitlement, which is a big problem.

 

[Oofta]

When discussing the game, we need to note what is in the text, and what is at the table. If you just glom them together indiscriminately, too much goes unsaid for it to be useful to anyone else.

I wasn't doing that. I was answering a very specific statement to which I thought personal experience was relevant. I'm not talking general game theory, I've given up on that. I was very specific that I was talking about my thoughts on inclusion of rules or lack therein.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer: D&D doesn't try to have rules for every aspect of what can happen in a campaign. In fact it goes out of it's way to encourage groups to make the game their own. It doesn't establish canon campaign concepts, tone or tropes outside of a very general "pseudo-medieval world of magic" general default (and it even gives options outside of that).

The decision to not include rules for certain aspects that people are likely to encounter compared to other games that do include them is very relevant to any conversation of game design.

 

[billd91]

This bolded bit is what I keep coming back to. There is ZERO evidence that the excluded segment was ever large. Even now, we're talking about 25% of the gaming population, and that's because we've had twenty some years of aging to add on. It's a lot easier to have older gamers in a hobby that's 50 years old than a hobby that's 20 years old.

That's the problem - and the bias of the survey. By, as they put it, arbitrarily excluding anyone over 35 based on their internal analysis (read: assumptions), they bias the survey. How much, we really don't know. They don't tell us if they received any responses from anyone over 35 or if the criteria of the survey suppressed all responses from that age group.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that the age cutoff omits pretty much all baby boomers from the survey. It effectively starts with, and is largely focused on, GenX. As much as that may gratify me a little since we're the generation otherwise most overlooked, Boomers outnumbered us by 10-12 million people at that point (we're still not expected to outnumber them until about 2028). And there have been notable differences between our generations in terms of settled employment and ability to generate wealth - GenX may have OK income these days, but we have traditionally held a lot more debt than the Boomers (though we're not as badly hit as the Millennials).

One other thing to consider - Ryan Dancey excoriated TSR for not listening to its customers. And rightfully so. This survey only partly addressed that problem because they, apparently, chose to not listen to the pre-GenX segment of their market based on their internal analysis (which is what got them into so much trouble in the first place). Were they right to do so? I have no idea. But I do know that there have always been a lot of players more than 3-4 years older than me in the hobby - still are. Gary Con is chock full of them. So, I remain skeptical that it was the right move to arbitrarily bias the survey in such a way.

 

[clearstream]

Sure. But ethos and duty are not the same.

On the one hand, I'd urge thought toward the frequently deontic consequences of an ethos (one can possibly cherrypick an ethos without deontic consequence, but the general point is right). And on the other hand, I don't think it is essential that @Campbell and I are saying the same thing: we're making closely related but non-identical comments.

And, by the way, in that position, the players then do owe the designers something in return - a bit of respect for their effort and work, even if the work product isn't to your liking. If such an ethos is not met with respect, the situation becomes one of toxic entitlement, which is a big problem.

That's an excellent point!

 

[SkidAce]

Specifically, at the time, they were not considering the data submitted by gamers who were born before 1964. So, by and large, the excluded folks were the original grognards - gamers of the 1970s, the folks who were in their teens or older when D&D was first published.

We should all expect that group to be vastly outnumbered by the the gamers of the 80s. So, yes, we should expect the excluded segment to have been small.

And also, unless you are over 57 years old now, the perspective of your age group was included at the time.

Oh noes, I'm excluded* again.....




* I prefer term "pioneer" and "avant-garde" (59 this year)