D&D General The Problem with Talking About D&D

[Jer]

Some people desire to follow the rules as written, some want to alter it to their tastes.

But it seems like it's mostly the rules as written folks arguing with each other, rather than the homebrew rule folks arguing with the rules as written folks.

That's because most any argument among RAW folks where a homebrew person says something like "well you can change it this way" gets a "this discussion is about RAW, not homebrew" response. And the folks who are into the game design aspect and thinking of their own ways to fix things are off in their own threads.

Sometimes the discussions will even set the bounds where when you bring up "official" optional rules in the DMG that could be used you get the same response.

The real issue is that internet discussions about D&D - much like internet discussion in general - is not like real life discussion. It's segmented and self-selected in a way that folks around a table at a con discussing the game wouldn't be.

 

[payn]

I know I'm just getting into the well-worn balance gripe, but I feel like it's frankly ridiculous that it's such an established problem that someone like Colville thinks it needs addressing with the kind of measures that work for wargames and card games. Regardless of why it might be needed, if you can actually quantify an RPG that way, I'm genuinely not sure it's still an RPG.

I know, I was certainly thinking to myself while watching the video, "welcome to 1990 Matt..." Though, I think D&D has more in common with card and wargames than most RPGs. That's why these discussions often end up here. There is an expectation on D&D that others are not saddled with.

 

[billd91]

I think Colville makes excellent points. While groups may not be entirely unique, they're probably all in a broadly defined minority of poorly connected groups. I'd be surprised if there's any play style than truly be described as a "majority" style.
I think some of the debate about PF1 options really play into the disconnect Colville is seeing. Paizo put out a variety of options - including archetypes for some classes, feats, and so on - that generated a lot of debate on the Paizo boards for being overpowered/underpowered, etc. But I always saw it as Paizo throwing out a lot of thematic options that may or may not work at any given table. The most vocal critics generally seemed to assume that Paizo should have been designing based on that "problem to solve" model. The same is true, I think, for the people who complain the most about the Oberoni Fallacy or trap options. Not every option is appropriate for every situation.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Because some people want balanced encounters and some people don't care about balance. That's partially the point. If your DM picks up a meatgrinder of a tactical module and runs your non-tactical, roleplay-focused group through that...they're going to have a bad time. But if you run your optimized, tactical wargaming group through the same thing they might be bored with how pedestrian all the fights are. So instead of the current one-size-fits-all mistake, you intentionally tailor things to the obvious different playstyles that exist in the hobby. There's video game research on what different players want out of games, I can't think of a better place to start than that.

I do like the idea of signaling that an adventure is skewered toward a given playstyle, but do you think that needs to be quantified or clearly delineated? Wouldn't that just come across in the description? Like if I were running for a super tactical group, I'd give Strixhaven a hard pass, not because of some rating or color-coding, just based on the presented content and vibe. Meanwhile, a 3rd party book that's brimming with demons or whatever, sure thing.

But even then, I think the notion that every demons-slaying encounter will or should be magically balanced...I mean, it sets up a weird paradox. If the PC group is pure tactics badassery, give them challenges that might be impossible to beat, but they can still see how far they get before retreating. Or maybe they surprise you and themselves and actually win? There's nothing impressive about being tactically proficient if the GM is constantly nudging and tweaking to keep things spicy, not not too spicy.

 

[payn]

I think Colville makes excellent points. While groups may not be entirely unique, they're probably all in a broadly defined minority of poorly connected groups. I'd be surprised if there's any play style than truly be described as a "majority" style.
I think some of the debate about PF1 options really play into the disconnect Colville is seeing. Paizo put out a variety of options - including archetypes for some classes, feats, and so on - that generated a lot of debate on the Paizo boards for being overpowered/underpowered, etc. But I always saw it as Paizo throwing out a lot of thematic options that may or may not work at any given table. The most vocal critics generally seemed to assume that Paizo should have been designing based on that "problem to solve" model. The same is true, I think, for the people who complain the most about the Oberoni Fallacy or trap options. Not every option is appropriate for every situation.

To be fair, some folks are very RAW minded and want the rules to work. Having folks jump in and wave away their concerns because Oberoni can be frustrating. Its the other side of the coin for the person looking to match flavor and class being bombarded by optimizers.

 

[Lyxen]

Some people desire to follow the rules as written, some want to alter it to their tastes.
But it seems like it's mostly the rules as written folks arguing with each other, rather than the homebrew rule folks arguing with the rules as written folks.

Note there are reasons these days for wanting fairly harmonious sets of rules. We had these at the level of clubs in A&D times, so that you could go from one table to the next, from one DM to the next and roughly know what to expect. Today, we have AL, but even more than this, we have online gaming through VTTs, and people finding games with people that they have never met, because it's also a good way to find games.

On the other hand, it does not facilitate empathy and easy discussions either, so it might amplify problems.

 

[billd91]

I do like the idea of signaling that an adventure is skewered toward a given playstyle, but do you think that needs to be quantified or clearly delineated?

Yes - if anything, there isn't enough of this in the game publishing world. And more designer notes so we can better understand the ideas and make better choices!

Wouldn't that just come across in the description?

Maybe? But then again, maybe it wouldn't without a bit more up-front discussion of the issue.

 

[beancounter]

Note there are reasons these days for wanting fairly harmonious sets of rules. We had these at the level of clubs in A&D times, so that you could go from one table to the next, from one DM to the next and roughly know what to expect. Today, we have AL, but even more than this, we have online gaming through VTTs, and people finding games with people that they have never met, because it's also a good way to find games.

On the other hand, it does not facilitate empathy and easy discussions either, so it might amplify problems.

Sure, that's a good point. But usually people are apprised of the rules before playing (at least I know that's true of AL).
And in other cases, a "session 0" can get everyone on the same page, even with a VTT.

 

[payn]

I do like the idea of signaling that an adventure is skewered toward a given playstyle, but do you think that needs to be quantified or clearly delineated? Wouldn't that just come across in the description? Like if I were running for a super tactical group, I'd give Strixhaven a hard pass, not because of some rating or color-coding, just based on the presented content and vibe. Meanwhile, a 3rd party book that's brimming with demons or whatever, sure thing.

But even then, I think the notion that every demons-slaying encounter will or should be magically balanced...I mean, it sets up a weird paradox. If the PC group is pure tactics badassery, give them challenges that might be impossible to beat, but they can still see how far they get before retreating. Or maybe they surprise you and themselves and actually win? There's nothing impressive about being tactically proficient if the GM is constantly nudging and tweaking to keep things spicy, not not too spicy.

The Paizo adventure path player's guide is an underrated resource. These little PDFs give a detailed and informative advertisement of what to expect from the campaign. Best part? They are given away for free so the only investment is 5-10 min of reading.

 

[Umbran]

There are some topics where I think this might be true. D&D's larger pool can mean more edge cases to discuss, etc. But I don't think that's what's going on here, because so many other game are harder to quantify, in part because they're more open-ended.

I think he means more that you need some largish number of people playing, and all going to shared spaces to talk, to sustain discussions at all.