Should game designers remain neutral when designing D&D?

[Majoru Oakheart]

Now diceless isn't a playstyle, it's a totally different kind of game. Some of what you suggested could easily be a plug n play option.

Great, so playstyles you don't agree with now aren't counted as playstyles? Diceless/freeform is certainly a playstyle. I've played at tables where dice weren't rolled for anything for 3 or 4 sessions straight(though we weren't strictly playing the game diceless, but we were minimizing the number of rolls we made to only what we considered essential).

At its core roleplaying is simple: Pretend to be a character within an alternate universe.

Rules help to guide the game to the kind of experience you want. If the rules say "Flip a coin, one of the players calls it, if he wins, the party defeats the monsters they are fighting" it creates a game with a really quick and very random combat system. Combat is dangerous because of a 50/50 chance you'll lose, so it's likely avoided. However, that depends on what the rules for losing are. If they aren't harsh, maybe combat happens more often because of how much time it takes to resolve. It might turn off players whose playstyle includes tactical play or are very interested in the details of combat.

On the flip side(pun intended), a game with combat rules that simulate every swing, feint, parry, dodge, and stab might make combat take 2 hours to complete. This might appeal to some players way more than others. Some players who don't care about combat will get bored and feel that the game feels too much like a video game or something because of how many rules there are for fighting. The game might feel like it resolves around combat more since more of the time spent at the table is spent thinking about combat. It likely causes characters to spend more of their character creation time thinking about what combat abilities their character has and how their character performs in combat.

That's kind of the point. Every rule carries a playstyle assumption with it. At best you can try to make a rule that has a happy medium between the two extremes in any particular situation. Though while doing so, you risk alienating both sides.

Inevitably, each game will have a playstyle that it works best with.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I believe game designers should not create games based in their personal preference. I think the core system should be as neutral as possible with options that allow players to tailor their games to their playstyle of choice.

Ain't no such thing as neutral design, my friend. All games come from a certain perspective.

But that perspective can be "someone is going to take this and heavily modify it and I should make that easy for them."

I think that's part of the perspective that 5e is taking. So I wouldn't worry too much about having someone else's preferred game pushed on you.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I believe game designers should not create games based in their personal preference. I think the core system should be as neutral as possible with options that allow players to tailor their games to their playstyle of choice.

OK Xunvaldorl I challenge you

find a way to write rules completely play style neutral, we just need to pick one thing... lets see...

I believe 5th edition is taking on too much of 4th editions death rarity playstyle and I would really like to see that avoided. Let each group decide what playstyle they want. What I like may not always be what a designer likes.

Ok write the rule yourself in such a way that people can make it work for any playstyle... without just saying DMs can make up what they want....

 

[Alzrius]

I wouldn't call D&D a work of art. Artists usually create something for them, unless they are hired to do so.

I find the idea that something is only art if it's designed 1) for personal pleasure, or 2) on commission, to be too limiting a definition.

 

[billd91]

I wouldn't characterize it as neutrality, but I think the nature of the project may impose impersonal requirements that must be met in game design. Starting a game up from scratch, of course, imposes the fewest impersonal requirements. The game designer has a lot of freedom to craft the game he or she wants to play (and undoubtedly hopes others want to play as well). There's no point in expecting any kind of neutrality.

Designers inheriting a game and updating it should recognize that getting involved in revising a game hands them less freedom because the project also has a legacy. Failure to support or integrate that legacy courts trouble. Maybe the designer's alternate vision is better for the game's market, but maybe it's not. I think it's more reasonable to expect the designers to not be prejudiced against the game's legacy, if not be neutral, if they're going to be the game's ongoing steward.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the core system should be as neutral as possible with options that allow players to tailor their games to their playstyle of choice.

For 5e design, I'd say it should stay neutral gamestyle-wise, at least because it's a stated design goal to be as inclusive as possible. They want to try getting people from different editions into 5e, so they have to keep the game flexible.

For the design of other games (or edition), this doesn't have to be a design goal. It's perfectly fine to design a game with a specific gamestyle in mind, and it's very likely easier to do so.

 

[saskganesh]

We should have a game designed by a committee of disinterested people who are only in it for the money, fame and sexual attentions of their preferred gender.

I'm sure that will turn out well.

 

[Umbran]

cook food you don't want to eat?

Occasionally. My wife is allergic to strawberries. She doesn't want to eat them. Doesn't mean she won't occasionally make strawberry shortcake for friends who like it...

I think that if a designer has super-strong personal preferences, such that they only like one kind of game, they're going to have a problem if they try to design outside that realm. If they do not understand what is pleasing in various playstyles, they can't effectively design to them. So, if they try to be "neutral", they're going to do a bad job of it.

Write what you know, basically. If you've got really strong preferences, write those sorts of games. If you have broad preferences, write broadly applicable games.

 

[TerraDave]

I feel agreed with and disagreed with at the same time...but it will certainly be harder to cook food you cant taste, and do it well.

I agree.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Ideally, game designers would be familiar with and enjoy a wide variety of play styles, and work towards creating a game that supports as many of those as possible (when trying to make a game meant to have a wide appeal, such as D&D).

If you don't like a whole lot of flavors, you should not be a chef.