The New Design Philosophy?

[Henry]

I dissagree that that is in any way a fault of the system. There are three "core" books in the game. PHB, DMG, and MM. All others are Optional accessories. It's always even in other editions of the game, been the DM's job to make the final call on what books and rules were allowed...

...Now, instead of having to make your own rules, you can see if anyone else has a better idea first. (which is great for time strapped DM's like me!)

But that doesn't mean you HAVE to use every rule out there in your home game!

In theory, I agree. In practice, however, there is a rather strong movement within the D&D gaming community that

(A) if it's in a WotC book, there's no reason a DM SHOULDN'T allow it, and
(B) if it's NOT in a WotC book, it can't possibly have been playtested well, and is automatically suspect.

I see it here, to a lesser extent, I see it on RPG.Net, to an even lesser extent, but still perceived, and on the WotC forums I see it even stronger. It's a movement I wish I could do something about, but there's really nothing anyone can do -- it's like trying to make something "cool" or "uncool" by committee, rather than by example, which is impossible.

 

[Scribble]

In theory, I agree. In practice, however, there is a rather strong movement within the D&D gaming community that

(A) if it's in a WotC book, there's no reason a DM SHOULDN'T allow it, and
(B) if it's NOT in a WotC book, it can't possibly have been playtested well, and is automatically suspect.

I see it here, to a lesser extent, I see it on RPG.Net, to an even lesser extent, but still perceived, and on the WotC forums I see it even stronger. It's a movement I wish I could do something about, but there's really nothing anyone can do -- it's like trying to make something "cool" or "uncool" by committee, rather than by example, which is impossible.

Interesting... I've seen that as well. I guess I just don't believe it myself. I use options from all over the place.

I kind of wondered in a thread once that if Wizards had released more of the "behind the scenes" sort of info on how certain rules were created, or made things more clear, would there have been so many of the "un balanced" products that came out in the begining?

Would that have maybe culled the "if it ain't wizards it's broke..." attitude?

 

[Delta]

When I read WOTC material these days, I am bored to tears. All of the items are functional, but they often lack any flavor. This has been the trend throughout 3e and I do not see it changing anytime soon.

WOTC wants to deal with mechanics. Flavor seems to be a dirty word with them. They want everything to fit a specific niche and utilize standard effects.

I totally agree with that. I think part of it is the "Magic"-ification of D&D, which I see as accelerating. 3.0 made some significant changes that were pretty well received. That's given a green-light to the WOTC designers that everything about D&D is fair game for overhauling.

I used to work at a computer-based CCG company. What's really easy for the CCG designers is to start slamming together mechanics without any thought to flavor, and there comes a point when they see that as their job. (They are the most hard-core players, and they spend all their free time analyzing the game that pure-mechanical way, so it's how they think.)

I would much prefer a design philosophy that asked this: "How can we best simulate all the classic fantasy books and mythology in D&D?" That wouldn't be a mechanical question, it would involve stripping out rules and abilities and spells that conflict with how new players perceive of a fantasy adventure when they sit at the table. Difficult and hard to pull off, but I'd rather see D&D walk in that direction that the current CCG-mechanics-uber-alles.

 

[FireLance]

This begs the question: why does the Wizards of the Coast R&D team strive for so strict a balance and why does it intend to strip away out-of-box options from you?

I put it to you that there is nothing that WotC R&D can do to strip away out-of-the-box options from anyone who wants it. That is, by definition, what out-of-the-box means, no? Not actually following the rules and/or interpreting them creatively?

All you need are players that think out-of-the-box, and have no problems with DMs that do the same, and DMs who think out-of-the-box and have no problems with players who do the same. The mutual lack of problems with thinking out-of-the-box is necessary, otherwise you end up with rules lawyers and control freaks.

What I find strange is the assertion that standardizing the rules so that their effects can be better understood and anticipated is seen as removing edge and color from the game. Perhaps it does reduce some types of "fun" - the fun of using the rules to create effects that were unanticipated, for example. However, it doesn't reduce the types of fun I find in the game - the fun of solving problems, the fun of tactical combat, the fun of pretending to be braver, nobler, kinder, more capable and more heroic than I am in real life.

This whole debate reminds me of a passage in Madeline L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time, where life was compared to a sonnet. I haven't got the exact quote, and the best I could find with Google is as follows:

"It is a very strict form of poetry is it not?
There are fourteen lines, I believe, all in iambic pentameter. That's a very strict rhythm or meter, yes?
And each line has to end with a rigid rhyme pattern. And if the poet does not do it exactly this way, it is not a sonnet, is it?"
"You mean you're comparing our lives to a sonnet? A strict form, but freedom within it?"
"Yes. You're given the form, but you have to write the sonnet yourself. What you say is completely up to you."​

The same goes for games.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I don't mind have a huge amount of crunch available, but to me its a cooking-like approach. Just because I have 48 spices on the rack doesn't mean that I have to use every one in a dish. More options *for the DM* can make for a more thematic, focused campaign when used appropriately.

DMs that allow everything plus the kitchen sink are asking for trouble.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

In theory, I agree. In practice, however, there is a rather strong movement within the D&D gaming community that

(A) if it's in a WotC book, there's no reason a DM SHOULDN'T allow it, and
(B) if it's NOT in a WotC book, it can't possibly have been playtested well, and is automatically suspect.

I think Henry just succintly encapsulated how I feel with that, and summing up a growing part of my frustration.

IRL, I see far more of (A) than (B), and it's getting tougher and tougher to stand firm.

 

[Victim]

I would much prefer a design philosophy that asked this: "How can we best simulate all the classic fantasy books and mythology in D&D?" That wouldn't be a mechanical question, it would involve stripping out rules and abilities and spells that conflict with how new players perceive of a fantasy adventure when they sit at the table. Difficult and hard to pull off, but I'd rather see D&D walk in that direction that the current CCG-mechanics-uber-alles.

Wow, that wouldn't suck.

 

[Scribble]

I would much prefer a design philosophy that asked this: "How can we best simulate all the classic fantasy books and mythology in D&D?" That wouldn't be a mechanical question, it would involve stripping out rules and abilities and spells that conflict with how new players perceive of a fantasy adventure when they sit at the table. Difficult and hard to pull off, but I'd rather see D&D walk in that direction that the current CCG-mechanics-uber-alles.

My imagination has to conform to a strict set of "what is fantasy" guidelines?

 

[The Shaman]

I read over my 1e MM to get a better idea of the OM in earlier editions. It mentions that the OM will most likely be found in a cave or other remote abandoned area with some slaves and a few other Ogres.

Um, where do you see a reference to other ogres in the 1e MM?

Lives in a fortified dwelling or secure cavern complex...forays to capture treasure and humans for slaves and food...if encountered in their lair they will be lead by a chief of great size and possess 2-12 slaves/prisoners.

No, no ogres in the 4th printing (1979). What are you looking at?

 

[Scribble]

Um, where do you see a reference to other ogres in the 1e MM?

Lives in a fortified dwelling or secure cavern complex...forays to capture treasure and humans for slaves and food...if encountered in their lair they will be lead by a chief of great size and possess 2-12 slaves/prisoners.

No, no ogres in the 4th printing (1979). What are you looking at?

I'll admit I don't have it in front of me, and I read it yesterday while getting ready for work, so I might have misread the part about other ogres? I'll check tonight.