Should game designers remain neutral when designing D&D?

[Morrus]

I don't pay for rules that I have to ignore. I don't mind paying for options though.

What on earth is the difference between a rule you ignore and an option? Is it just that you want to book to give you permission to ignore them?

 

[Mark CMG]

The fact is... the designers and developers made it a point to play every edition of D&D prior to beginning their work... so they could remind themselves what were universal traits, what were specific edition traits that worked, and what were specific edition traits that didn't work. And they've been using their own ideas (plus the ideas of the thousands of playtesters) to figure out which rules were the best and worked best together to create a game that is more like all the editions at the same time. A gestalt version of Dungeons & Dragons.

I'm not sure how that "fact" holds up under scrutiny. From what I read when that fact was being trotted out, the gaming was going on in-house among the designers. I've mentioned here the last couple of years that the designers of the new edition should get themselves to Gary Con and play with some of the early DMs (Kask, Mentzer, Ward, Ernie Gygax, and many more designers, writers, and DMs with names perhaps not as recognizable) of the early systems to get a real feel for how those systems play. The problem with in-house play is that you can play a game in the style of another game if you are mostly used to that other game. I've run 1E games for 4E players who approached the game like they played 4E, quite understandably, and I've run 3.5E for players of (O)D&D and a similar approach was there as well. You can work around that problem with enough effort and with someone who has years of experience in the system of note, but even that isn't easy. And I'm not sure that bias can be helped or avoided by a group with little or no experience, or with folks who have been heavily immersed in a newer system who haven't really played the earlier systems in years barring the occasional one-shot. The designers of the new edition missed a huge opportunity. They might have individually joined other groups of regular players of earlier editions or even had games run for a whole bunch of them at a time, though the former might have been more educational. I haven't seen any 4E played at GaryCon, yet, but there are games of all other editions, plus PF, played each and every day for four days every March.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sounds like you are not understanding to be honest.

then show us a playstyle neutral set of death rules... you can write them or point to the game that has them...

 

[ExploderWizard]

What on earth is the difference between a rule you ignore and an option? Is it just that you want to book to give you permission to ignore them?

That seems to be the big tripping point these days. The ultimate appeal to game designer authority in order to provide "legitimacy" to your fun.

I have yet to fully understand the desire that some have to not want to be in control of the content of thier personal games.

 

[Savage Wombat]

3rd Ed was the first game edition that clearly (and inaccurately) stated that "We've very carefully balanced this game so that everything works. Disturb this balance at your peril." And I would see how new Prestige Classes and splatbook spells would disrupt this balance. So DMs like myself were leery of trying to houserule out things that didn't seem right without a lot of evidence and math. In retrospect, this has not been healthy for the game.

Someone in another thread suggested that a good DMG would suggest what the consequences of changing game rules would be, and what other rules might need altering if you change one.

 

[MichaelSomething]

What on earth is the difference between a rule you ignore and an option? Is it just that you want to book to give you permission to ignore them?

An option was designed to be ignorable, a rule isn't. Some rules are quite vital to making the game work, and removing them would hurt the game. Other rules are not as vital and can be removed no problem. It would be helpful to know which one is which.

 

[ExploderWizard]

An option was designed to be ignorable, a rule isn't. Some rules are quite vital to making the game work, and removing them would hurt the game. Other rules are not as vital and can be removed no problem. It would be helpful to know which one is which.

Once you realize that all rules are optional or modifiable your gaming life will get easier.

 

[pemerton]

What makes D&D identifiable besides the name on the cover?

<snip>

I don't count 4th edition because it hasn't been around long enough and lots of people stopped playing it because they felt it wasn't D&D.

<snip>

What would you list as being iconic to D&D?

Perhaps the two most iconic things for me about D&D are (i) party play, and (ii) dramatic change in the fictional stakes due to dramatic change in the capabilities and standing of the PCs in the fiction (ie levelling).

I also see essentially romantic/sentimental fantasy as pretty core too, but I don't thik that's as distinctively D&D (eg Runequest can do that but not so much the dramatic change in stakes).

For me, Basic D&D promised this but it's 4e that really delivers on it.

That doesn't mean I expect WotC to design Next to be like 4e and therefore suit me. But I don't really see why they should be designing to suit you either. WotC is a commercial publisher. They should be designing so that what they publish will sell. Whether that will please you or me depends upon where we sit within the market - so your complaints and concerns, which you're presenting as going to the logic of design, really look to me like they go to the logic of commercialisation and marketing.

Someone in another thread suggested that a good DMG would suggest what the consequences of changing game rules would be, and what other rules might need altering if you change one.

I think that might have been me. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not sure how that "fact" holds up under scrutiny. From what I read when that fact was being trotted out, the gaming was going on in-house among the designers. I've mentioned here the last couple of years that the designers of the new edition should get themselves to Gary Con and play with some of the early DMs (Kask, Mentzer, Ward, Ernie Gygax, and many more designers, writers, and DMs with names perhaps not as recognizable) of the early systems to get a real feel for how those systems play. The problem with in-house play is that you can play a game in the style of another game if you are mostly used to that other game. I've run 1E games for 4E players who approached the game like they played 4E, quite understandably, and I've run 3.5E for players of (O)D&D and a similar approach was there as well. You can work around that problem with enough effort and with someone who has years of experience in the system of note, but even that isn't easy. And I'm not sure that bias can be helped or avoided by a group with little or no experience, or with folks who have been heavily immersed in a newer system who haven't really played the earlier systems in years barring the occasional one-shot. The designers of the new edition missed a huge opportunity. They might have individually joined other groups of regular players of earlier editions or even had games run for a whole bunch of them at a time, though the former might have been more educational. I haven't seen any 4E played at GaryCon, yet, but there are games of all other editions, plus PF, played each and every day for four days every March.

Really? This is what you're going with? The work to incorporate earlier editions into the game doesn't count because the designers weren't REAL players of the earlier editions?

Yeah... I think you're grasping at straws here.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

What on earth is the difference between a rule you ignore and an option? Is it just that you want to book to give you permission to ignore them?

Options that are created by the designers to plug into the game have been tested so that the game works fine with them or without them. You have to be very careful what rules you start pulling out because the game may end up falling apart. Also, I don't really purchase RPG's just to pull them apart. I could save myself a ton of money and just come up with my own game. Having printed options still puts everyone on the same page, especially when you are someone who plays with multiple groups. I don't want to have to homebrew each group I with, but having those options printed in the books gives everyone an idea of what kind of game a specific group could play.