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

[Mezuka]

Colville has spoken. What do you think?

 

[Argyle King]

Isn't the idea behind boxed text, introductions, and various other "normal" parts of a book to do exactly what he's suggesting with the color coding?

 

[overgeeked]

Isn't the idea behind boxed text, introductions, and various other "normal" parts of a book to do exactly what he's suggesting with the color coding?

The difference being a quick point of reference you can look at on the front or back cover of a book vs having to buy, then read most of the book, then gleaning the information on your own.

 

[overgeeked]

Colville has spoken. What do you think?

It's a good general idea, but it's antithetical to WotC's goals and design. They really seem to think everyone plays the game exactly the way they designed it to be played. And you can see this in their seemingly genuine surprise at the puchback over the baked-in playstyle design. You can see this in the design of both 4E and 5E with their assumptions about gameplay. In 4E it was a party of 5 using maps and minis. In 5E it's a party of 4 having 6-8 combat encounters per adventuring day. If they removed that terrible assumption, then a system like Matt is proposing could work. Otherwise it'll just cause fewer DMs to pick up the modules as they're not tailored to their group. As it stands, DMs who run modules buy more of them and tailor them to the group. Which is what WotC wants. More sales. This kind of system would cause fewer sales. A non-WotC company could use this and likely do well with it. Here's to hoping MCDM does so.

 

[Oofta]

The basic premise, that no one size fits all, is something I've repeated too many times to count. I've run two different groups at the same time, same level, similar challenges and there was always significant difference in how much I can throw and what kind of encounters I could use.

On the other hand there is no secret recipe, it just comes down to encounter design is as much an art as it is a science no matter how much we want to categorize things. So I don't think a group-type alignment chart is going to work either, all you can do is be up front about what kind of mod it is or what kind of games you run. I run a pretty RP heavy game in my own home brew world. When recruiting players I let them know my general style, restrictions and tone. I also accept I'm not going to be the right DM for everyone.

It's the same with mods. Someone that picks up Tomb of Horrors may well not be that interested in Strixhaven. But as long as there's enough of a description of the style and tone, I don't see why it's a big issue.

 

[payn]

Honestly, I think both discussing the game as an amateur designer and/or by RAW is fine. Folks should just be mindful of announcing their intent when they begin the discussion. Also, folks should be mindful when they join a discussion in progress. Otherwise, D&D will always be difficult to talk about because its incredibly nuanced. Thats what makes it an interesting game and topic.

 

[Lyxen]

It's a good general idea, but it's antithetical to WotC's goals and design. They really seem to think everyone plays the game exactly the way they designed it to be played.

I don't think it's true, in particular in 5e.

And you can see this in their seemingly genuine surprise at the puchback over the baked-in playstyle design. You can see this in the design of both 4E and 5E with their assumptions about gameplay. In 4E it was a party of 5 using maps and minis. In 5E it's a party of 4 having 6-8 combat encounters per adventuring day. If they removed that terrible assumption, then a system like Matt is proposing could work.

And it's not an assumption. It's just an example of a computation. Reading it like a guideline - or even worse, a rule - is exactly what causes the problems discussed here, not the rules themselves.

 

[Umbran]

Colville has spoken. What do you think?

For his points about online discussion - I have gone on record that gaming discussing to understand what the other person is saying, and why, is generally far more constructive than discussion to prove them wrong.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I mean, is it a great sign for an RPG system that there's so much handwringing in 5e over balanced encounters? This is not a thing in every RPG, or, I'd argue, most of them! These aren't boxing matches. You don't need to weigh all the participants and make sure both sides are perfectly, evenly matched. If the PCs are outmatched, they can run away, like countless protagonists do in countless movies, books, etc. If a fight is easy, well, is the fight really the most interesting part of the story, anyway, or is it some narrative consequence or result from the fight?

For example, imagine paging through a Call of Cthulhu adventure, and stressing about whether three players make for a balanced encounter against a Shoggoth, while four might walk all over it. Or even in something as combat-heavy and power fantasy-based as 5e, like Shadowrun, does anyone seriously fret about balance like this? I've never seen it myself, and it always makes me feel real weird about this hobby, that a problem so boring and self-inflicted would be such a recurring one.

 

[Umbran]

It's a good general idea, but it's antithetical to WotC's goals and design. They really seem to think everyone plays the game exactly the way they designed it to be played. And you can see this in their seemingly genuine surprise at the puchback over the baked-in playstyle design. You can see this in the design of both 4E and 5E with their assumptions about gameplay. In 4E it was a party of 5 using maps and minis. In 5E it's a party of 4 having 6-8 combat encounters per adventuring day.

Every system (be it a car engine or a game system) has design assumptions and goals. You cannot "design" without having some target parameters.

Then, it is better to have design parameters and assumptions, and be open about them, than not. If I tell you the assumptions, you can more easily see how your own situation varies from those assumptions, and then have a clue as to how to adjust.