D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[Vaalingrade]

I've seen streamlined and simple the way D&D wants to do it (by having like one mechanic) though. No thanks.

Logical application of subsystems (as opposed to D&D's way of adding a sub system for every new concept) and lots and lots of keywording is the way I like it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If it feels the same to you, that's all that matters. It felt the same to me, and to others.

D&D spells always felt just like a mage was hauling around a set of immaterial handgrenades with different function too, but that still didn't mean it was true. If someone is going to make a broad statement they can either make it clear that was just how it came across to them or expect to get called on it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Do you have an example? I'm genuinely curious. I find Skill Challenges, the regular one- or few-roll uses of skills, and the existing rules for traps, combat, and terrain, plus Page 42's improvisation guides, to be sufficiently comprehensive that I genuinely don't really know what you would need.

The one that comes to mind was the math-patch feats. There were also a few other feats that were just bad (and we didn't want to leave laying around as traps). I seem to also recall there was some stuff wrong with some of the Heroes of Shadow material, but I don't recall we ever got around to fixing it before that campaign ended.

Yes. "Tweaking" or "adjusting to taste" is not, at all, the kind of thing that was originally described. The thing originally described was literally reviewing the entire system "from top to bottom" and changing lots of things. Not just a tweak here or a change in perspective there, but a literal "debugging" of the ENTIRE SYSTEM.

Well, a "lot" of things is probably an overstatement unless a system is seriously problematic but you still want to use it for some reason (perhaps because everything else you can think of for a given campaign would require at least as much work), but I'm not convinced "top to bottom" is. Until you have a good gestalt of the system as a whole (which I'd read that as being what you need to look at in that phrase) you're either going to think things are problems that aren't, or not see problems where they are until you trip over them in play.

The systems I favor do not need to be debugged, because they already have been debugged. It might be the case--as you yourself have just said--that there are simply things the metaphorical "software" was never programmed to handle in the first place. But "tweaks" and addressing something the rules are silent on is not the same as "debugging" a whole system "from top to bottom."

See my comment above.

Irrelevant! It is possible to say they are the same in some way, thus they are the same, through and through, no exceptions.

Well, I expressed my opinion about that sort of hyperbole in my prior post.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What "needs" fixing is, IME, often based on taste. In fact, everything we "fixed" in 4e and 5e was simply our taste. There was truly no need for us to fix either game.

I'm afraid I don't buy that, at least as a generalization (I did see the "often"). I think there's usually a significant difference between things that produce a playstyle you don't want or don't serve the setting you're trying to use it in, and ones that actively cause problems in play (and that probably didn't get noticed simply because no one pushed on them and/or made a big enough deal about them for the designers to decide to address them).

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's actually really funny really. Most games don't bother. It doesn't matter what character you play in most games - everyone at the table uses the same mechanics 99% of the time. Whether it's a trad game like GURPS or some hippy dippy pass the story stick Indie game. But, for some bizarre reason, mostly because, I think, of tradition, there is a subset of D&D gamers who insist that every player at the table has to learn a whole set of new rules every time they change characters.

D&D was the king of special-casing from pretty much day one. If you think its bad now, go back and find a copy of AD&D1e sometime (and OD&D was better only in having less bits, to the degree that was "better").

No thanks. Give me streamlined and simple and I'll handle the other stuff.

Well, I have to note that simplicity below a certain level is not a virtue when you come at an RPG as also a game; OD&D was simple but if you cared about the gameplay element, it was also often dull as dishwater unless you were there to "play the GM."

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D spells always felt just like a mage was hauling around a set of immaterial handgrenades with different function too, but that still didn't mean it was true. If someone is going to make a broad statement they can either make it clear that was just how it came across to them or expect to get called on it.

Ok. That's how it comes across to me.

 

[Lanefan]

The systems I favor do not need to be debugged, because they already have been debugged.

Or have had their bugs baked in so deeply they've become integral parts of the system...and yet are still bugs.

An example applicable to all three of 3e, 4e, and 5e: the shoehorning of what should be discrete sub-systems into universal mechanics.

It might be the case--as you yourself have just said--that there are simply things the metaphorical "software" was never programmed to handle in the first place.

Which, in the case of a big-tent RPG system, is itself a rather significant bug.

But "tweaks" and addressing something the rules are silent on is not the same as "debugging" a whole system "from top to bottom."

If I read through a paper with an eye to editing it and only end up making a very few changes, I've still given it the same depth of read as if I'd changed or rewritten whole passages of it.

Irrelevant! It is possible to say they are the same in some way, thus they are the same, through and through, no exceptions.

Either there's a typo here or this just doesn't make sense.

Chocolate ice cream and strawberry ice cream are not the same through and through, even though they are the same in some ways e.g. they are both ice cream, both frozen, etc.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which, in the case of a big-tent RPG system, is itself a rather significant bug.

Only if you assume every big-tent RPG system is of necessity designed to handle everything. The class of games that are designed for this are called "universal"; past that its just a question of where they draw the line.

 

[Lanefan]

To me, it all comes down to priorities. My highest priority for D&DOne is ease of use at the table. Given the choice between fantastic ideas that are really cool and interesting and super immersive and something that I can use intuitively and not have to faff around with the rule books too often, well, ease of use wins hands down every time.

I have no problem making my game interesting. Making the game interesting is what a DM is supposed to do. That's your job. That's the biggest part of being a DM, or it should be - making sure that the game is interesting. I can handle that bit. Neat ideas, cool adventures, interesting scenarios? Yup, I can do that. Or, at the very least, I can steal ideas from people who are far more creative that I am and run those.

But remember fifteen different subsystems that all do the same thing at the end of the day? Nope, not interested. Give me one rule that works most of the time and I'll muddle through on the times that it doesn't.

The idea that in game uniqueness is created by mechanical distinction is something I rejected a long time ago.

It's actually really funny really. Most games don't bother. It doesn't matter what character you play in most games - everyone at the table uses the same mechanics 99% of the time. Whether it's a trad game like GURPS or some hippy dippy pass the story stick Indie game. But, for some bizarre reason, mostly because, I think, of tradition, there is a subset of D&D gamers who insist that every player at the table has to learn a whole set of new rules every time they change characters.

No thanks. Give me streamlined and simple and I'll handle the other stuff.

Where I say give me mechanics that do the specific things that need doing in that instance, and if it ends up being complex (particularly on the DM-side) then so be it.

As a player, sure, I want it simple. Mechanics get in the way of roleplaying.

But as a DM, I want it as complex as it needs to be to give granularity in resolution and at least vaguely wave at reflecting reality - or at least being able to reflect the in-game reality - halfway consistently. Therefore, I-as-DM expect to be laregly dealing with those complexities so the players don't have to bother with them as much.

What gets sacrificed, every time, on the twin altars of simplicity and speed are granularity and detail; and while it's also certainly possible to go too far in the other direction and end up with a game that loses itself in details, 4e and 5e in their rush to simplify have IMO lost a lot - as in, far too much - of what makes play interesting.

 

[Lanefan]

Only if you assume every big-tent RPG system is of necessity designed to handle everything.

IMO that assumption is so obvious it shouldn't need stating; as if an RPG system isn't designed to at least try to handle - maybe not everything, but a very great variety of things including almost every playstyle - it's not big-tent, and trying to present/market it as if it was is disingenuous at best.

That's IMO a mistake both 3e and 4e made in their marketing: they were promoted as big-tent games but each had trouble supporting quite a few playstyles while not-so-subtly promoting others, and by design were hard to kitbash. Contrast this with 0e, 1e, and to a much lesser extent 5e; where they instead just give us the system and let each table make what they would of it both style-wise and rules-wise.