D&D General What Is D&D Generally Bad At That You Wish It Was Better At?

[CleverNickName]

I mean...I played Skyrim a lot when it first came out, and I loved it. But the reason I still play it today, fourteen years later, is because it's easy to mod.

So maybe both can be correct?

 

[overgeeked]

isn’t the blame that you do have to adjust the rules to get it to work in the first place?

If you need to adjust things then the game is not good at it on its own

That’s a weird take. I’ve never had a single game that worked perfectly for me and my tables out of the box. Everything’s required house rules. By your logic every single game is therefore flawed and badly designed.

 

[Theory of Games]

how does it do that? Have a rule that tells me not to change anything? If I want to change something that is not really going to stop me…

Can you name a TTRPG you consider a ‘bad game’ according to your criteria?

Coyote & Crow + another handful. But most ttrpgs embrace Rule Zero, as they should.

 

[mamba]

That’s a weird take. I’ve never had a single game that worked perfectly for me and my tables out of the box.

there is a difference between tweaking things a little to your preferences and having to make a lot of major changes to accommodate a playstyle

Small tweaks fine, rewriting 20% or more, not so much. If people say 5e supports Swords and Sorcery, you just have to throw out the casters then that is just another way of saying it is not supported

Yeah that's all GM issues. I banned casters and didn't use any monsters that required magic to harm. Slow (natural) healing has been an aspect of D&D until 4e came along. It seems as if you're expecting Sword & Sorcery to have the same gameplay "feel" as High Fantasy, which it shouldn't. A good GM has to know how to adjust the rules to create the proper play experience.

Can't blame the system for that

yes, you absolutely can, and should

 

[Theory of Games]

"Every game that doesn't allow you to modify the rules is bad, and every game that allows you to modify the rules is good" is an equally ridiculous position.

You've literally given examles of three different games that do not have "Rule Zero". Yet you agree they can be adjusted if the players feel it necessary. The only conclusion we can draw from this is that every game can be changed if the players feel it necessary--and thus there is no such thing as a badly-designed game.

Even if that critical flaw weren't present, it's quite clear that a game can be designed badly separately from whether they permit modification. A game about combat that has zero rules for combat is a badly-made game, objectively, it's literally bad at doing the thing it was designed to do.

No, again, the badly-designed game is the one that doesn't allow for rules changes. Simple.

I'm pretty sure that's called the Oberoni Fallacy.

Pretty sure no.

What is the Oberoni Fallacy?

In my travels across the internet, I've occasionally seen mention of a logical fallacy relating to roleplaying games called the Oberoni Fallacy. What is this fallacy, and where does it come from?

rpg.stackexchange.com

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, again, the badly-designed game is the one that doesn't allow for rules changes. Simple.


Pretty sure no.

What is the Oberoni Fallacy?

In my travels across the internet, I've occasionally seen mention of a logical fallacy relating to roleplaying games called the Oberoni Fallacy. What is this fallacy, and where does it come from?

rpg.stackexchange.com

So every game is well-designed.

 

[Remathilis]

That’s a weird take. I’ve never had a single game that worked perfectly for me and my tables out of the box. Everything’s required house rules. By your logic every single game is therefore flawed and badly designed.

There is also a difference between changes made for taste and having to modify the rules to make them functional. You absolutely can play D&D with no house rules and it will function just fine, but maybe not to your tastes.

 

[Theory of Games]

So every game is well-designed.

Most, not all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Most, not all.

Name some that aren't? Because it isn't physically possible to make a game nobody can modify.

 

[TiQuinn]

I'm pretty sure that's called the Oberoni Fallacy.

As opposed to the Toblerlone fallacy which says all problems can be solved with chocolate (yet to be disproved).