D&D 5E [+] What can D&D 5E learn from board games?

[overgeeked]

Note this is a plus thread.

If your response to the thread title is "nothing," then this thread isn't for you. Please keep that comment to yourself and move on.

The premise of the thread is: D&D 5E can be improved by learning from board games.

If you want to argue against the premise of the thread, then this thread isn't for you. Please keep those comments to yourself and move on.

#

So the question is: what specifically can D&D 5E use from board games to improve the game?

 

[Reynard]

#1 is far and away "Concise Rules Explanation." RPG are bloated masses of mid grade prose.

On the upside it seems to be changing. I really like directness and clarity of Shadowdark, for example.

 

[overgeeked]

#1 is far and away "Concise Rules Explanation." RPG are bloated masses of mid grade prose.

On the upside it seems to be changing. I really like directness and clarity of Shadowdark, for example.

We had that in D&D for a brief, shining moment...then like that poof it was gone.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

What I was thinking about here are some of the mechanics that Drive Arkham Horror, Eldritch Horror series of games from (Chaosium originally but Fantasy Flight Game these days)
They have a number of mechanics that could be adapted to an rpg.
For those who are unfamiliar with the games, the players play investigators in the Mythos and they are seeking to prevent the emergence of an Old One.
The game runs on a series of clocks and semi random events triggered by them, The main one is the mythos deck, These give event, environmental effects, outstanding mysteries that have to be solved to prevent the rise of the Big Bad and they mysteries can generate detrimental environmental effects of act as a clock where if unattended bad stuff happens. Gates spawn and monsters appear and the players have to priorities between boosting their capabilities, solving clues (the often the fuel to solve the mysteries), closing gate and hunting down monsters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The faults of "spotlight balance" (for cooperative games, I should say.)

A board game where one person does everything for multiple turns, and then a different person does everything for multiple turns, etc., and everyone who isn't the Spotlight Player is more or less just sitting there is going to be an extremely unpopular board game. "Bored" game, one might say. Not getting to meaningfully participate or contribute to the group effort for multiple turns in a row kills interest stone dead, and if any one spotlight shines a bit too bright or too wide, it can easily crowd out the others.

As a high-minded, abstract principle, "spotlight balance" sounds wonderful. All the freedom of an "unbalanced" game, or near enough to it, since within each spotlight the player is effectively alone. Yet all the rigor and challenge of a balanced game, since the ideal is that each player's spotlight is about equal in size, brightness, and duration. In practice, however, literally no part of that ever ends up ideal, and the specific characteristics of D&D lead to serious stumbles, mostly because of magic. Magic, the way D&D has (almost always) done it, is simply too powerful, versatile, and inaccessible to be compatible with "spotlight balance." Other games have taken steps to fix this, e.g. the Spheres of Power/Might alternate magic system for Pathfinder 1e (and later D&D 5e), but none of these alternatives has ever truly challenged the hegemony of D&D's overpowered, ultra-versatile, class-locked magic.

I get why people are enamored with the idea of "spotlight balance." It just...doesn't actually work in practice, and we all know the difference between theory and practice: in theory there should be no difference, in practice there is.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What player characters really want is to collect sheep!

 

[damiller]

Go back to just spelunking dungeons. Seriously, kinda. Board games are very focused. You can't do "anything". You are constrained. And that constraint leads to easy of learning (sometimes) and play. What it does though is limit replayability. That isn't necessarily a problem, i mean HOW many times have people STARTED to play monopoly - probably billions. Its just that the typical concept of a TTRPG is that of an openeness that a boardgame cannot give you. In fact I think I thought I saw a quote by Gygax somewhere to the effect of "RPGs are board games without boards".

I hope it doesn't sound at all like I hate this idea, I love the idea of making TTRPGs MORE accessible.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Copy-pasted form the video game thread:

One area form board games that I think we should look into deeply: the ways player information is presented and tracked. Cards for abilities, player boards, tokens for resources, progress trackers around the edge of the main board, stuff like that. Complex board games have found a lot of ways to make this information clear, easy to adjust, and readily available to everyone at the table, and lots of these ideas should be considered. I know people don't like ttrpgs that require anything beyond pencil & paper, but a good player board and u-to-date spell cards could go a long way to making the game much easier to play by managing information better.

I'd add to that "keeping options under control." I don't mind that there are 400 spells in the game, but me playing a wizard shouldn't involve picking my favorite 40. I don't need more than 10 at hand at most; special-case utility should be a matter of creativity and arcane skill not picking a bunch of skip buttons and hoping I picked one that applies to the situation in front of me.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Go back to just spelunking dungeons. Seriously, kinda. Board games are very focused. You can't do "anything". You are constrained. And that constraint leads to easy of learning (sometimes) and play. What it does though is limit replayability. That isn't necessarily a problem, i mean HOW many times have people STARTED to play monopoly - probably billions. Its just that the typical concept of a TTRPG is that of an openeness that a boardgame cannot give you. In fact I think I thought I saw a quote by Gygax somewhere to the effect of "RPGs are board games without boards".

I hope it doesn't sound at all like I hate this idea, I love the idea of making TTRPGs MORE accessible.

It's easier to have a strong core premise and build out than to try to make a game that does everything from the core book alone.

My proof is: that's how Dungeons & Dragons was made in the first place.

 

[Reynard]

Go back to just spelunking dungeons. Seriously, kinda. Board games are very focused. You can't do "anything". You are constrained. And that constraint leads to easy of learning (sometimes) and play. What it does though is limit replayability. That isn't necessarily a problem, i mean HOW many times have people STARTED to play monopoly - probably billions. Its just that the typical concept of a TTRPG is that of an openeness that a boardgame cannot give you. In fact I think I thought I saw a quote by Gygax somewhere to the effect of "RPGs are board games without boards".

I hope it doesn't sound at all like I hate this idea, I love the idea of making TTRPGs MORE accessible.

One Page RPGs do this very well -- and are fun to design. They are a challenge in the same way that writing good flash fiction is a challenge.