Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9042006" data-attributes="member: 7035894">What we keep coming back to is that D&D wasn't ever designed as a cohesive game. I would argue that it still isn't; all WotC have done is take that lack of design and enshrine it as a feature, not a flaw...and I think they might be right! (The closest they got to a fully designed D&D game was 4e, and look what that got them).When you look back at the early history of OD&D, there was HUGE debate about what the game even was, and how it should be played, so much so that every region had their own version of the game which they often considered just as valid as anything put out by Gygax. AD&D was an attempt to get control of the situation and the game (plus screw Arneson out of royalties) and so added a whole lot more design, but all it really did was bolt a whole bunch of different systems onto OD&D (which is what a judge found in rejecting TSR's claims that this was a whole new game).So AD&D is certainly a more designed game than OD&D in terms of the amount of stuff that is covered...but not really in terms of the basic principles of the game. It was still basically a miniatures wargame with additional rules to add role-play in a really half-assed way, with an expectation that most of the practical design work would either be done by the DM and/or via a published adventure module. 5e remains basically a miniatures wargame with additional rules to cover role-play, though in a significantly less half-assed way.As I mention above, this might sound like criticism, but I think the incompleteness of D&D (any edition) is more of a feature than a flaw. By de facto dumping a ton of design work onto the DM and players (mostly the DM) the game becomes empowering: when you run a D&D campaign, you are an author in a very real sense. This is powerful!So I think this argument is really about DM authorship in D&D, and the degree to which we prefer it to be open or constrained. I think that DM authorship is expressed in three primary ways:1. Encounter building2. Adventure building (i.e. plotting)3. World building1. Encounter building is the most constrained. Obviously D&D5e allows the DM carte blanche to put the pieces together however they want, but ultimately there is an implicit contract with the players that the encounter will be fair within the context of the overall story that is being cooperatively generated (e.g. you don't have to fight a Tarrasque at level 1). And once the encounter actually happens, the rules step in hard and the DM's authorship becomes severely limited. Sure, rule 0 still exists but in most circumstances the DM and players are expected to abide by RAW. Some of us take this further by making all rolls in the open, even DM rolls, so that everyone is on an equal footing and the story will be determined by player choices, constrained by rules, and pure luck.2. Adventure building is much more open. Not only does the DM have carte blanche to build story hooks any way they like, but players have considerable freedom to affect the direction of the story via their choices (and at some tables, like mine, by offering their own additions). This is where I like the rules to be relatively light. I do not want big lists of factors that might affect a skill check and by how much; I want to collaborate with my players so that the story we are creating feels right to us.3. World building is almost completely unconstrained. Again, I like this, and I like that the "rules" of a D&D setting (e.g. the various planes, alignments, species descriptions, etc.) are increasingly framed as suggestions and options. In my campaign, Bahamut is arguably worse than Tiamat, and there's no one that can tell me I'm doing it wrong.I think 5e is basically a fully realized OD&D. Which means that by some definitions, it remains kind of a "non-game." I think that is hyperbolic, but there is truth behind the hyperbole.</blockquote>

Verification