D&D General What makes D&D feel like D&D? (conclusions and follow-up questions)

JEB

Legend
Following on from this poll... here are the results out of 132 responses, ranked in tiers (with my thoughts):

Very important to D&D's feel (80% and up):
Ability scores (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) [87.1%]
Distinct character classes [87.1%]
Levels [87.1%]
Hit points [81.8%]

These seem to be the game features that the overwhelming majority of respondents consider important to D&D being D&D. In short, D&D needs to be a level-based game with characters defined by their ability scores and distinctive character classes. Hit points are also very important (presumably as opposed to other ways of measuring health). A version of D&D that drops these elements, or radically changed how they worked, would likely lose a lot of fans.

Important to D&D's feel (60% to 80%):
Armor Class [73.5%]
Using multiple types of dice [70.5%]
Saving throws [66.7%]

These aren't quite as widely agreed upon as the above, but still have pretty strong support among the respondents. I suspect you could change the particulars of how these work, but eliminating them entirely would be frowned upon by a majority of fans.

Debatable importance (40% to 60%):
Distinct character races/lineages [58.3%]
Experience points [50.8%]
Lists of specific spells [49.2%]
Alignment [45.5%]

Here's where things start to get interesting. Only a narrow majority thinks that character races and XP are important to D&D's feel - a lot of respondents could apparently live without them. I'm not sure what that means for character races - in fact, I'd really like to investigate that question further - but I'm betting a lot of respondents use milestone leveling rather than XP? Meanwhile, slightly less than half like having specific spells - again, curious what alternatives people have in mind - and alignment.

These seem like things that D&D could drop or significantly change and still have that D&D feel overall... but doing so would be a turn-off for a significant portion of the player base. So these are elements Wizards should keep around, likely... but there may be some negotiating room as to how important they are, and how they're executed.

Less important to D&D's feel (20% to 40%):
Lists of specific magic items [39.4%]
Initiative [36.4%]
Hit dice [24.2%]
Lists of specific equipment [24.2%]

Now we're into elements that aren't seen as important to D&D by the majority of respondents, though they still have some support. I assume being this low means one of two things:

a) Elements that could be changed or removed from the game. Certainly you could lose specific magic items, and especially equipment, and express them in some generic way (an upgrade of the various packs, perhaps?). Removing initiative prompts the question of how turns would be decided instead, though. Hit dice, of course, are kind of a remnant at this point anyway. (I separated hit dice from hit points on purpose, apparently correctly.)

b) Elements that aren't seen as particularly distinct from other RPGs, i.e. things that other RPGs have as well. That would be an odd fit for hit dice, but the others I can certainly see (especially initiative).

I'd be curious about clarifications on this point from anyone who responded. But my guess is that D&D could live without these elements, and it wouldn't be a deal-breaker for most fans... though it would be sad for a significant minority, and the replacements had better be good enough to make it worthwhile.

Not important to D&D's feel (20% and below):
Creature types [17.4%]
Deities [16.7%]
Great Wheel cosmology [15.9%]
Multiclassing [15.9%]
Feats [10.6%]
Proficiencies [10.6%]
Damage types [9.1%]
Surprise [5.3%]
Advantage/disadvantage [4.5%]
Conditions [4.5%]
Challenge ratings [3.8%]
World Axis cosmology [3.0%]
Backgrounds [2.3%]

Since many of these are NOT in other games besides D&D, so I have to assume this tier largely represents the true expendables. A version of D&D could quite probably drop all of these and replace them with something else, or at least radically alter them, and most fans would still be content with the game. Not coincidentally, these are mostly more recent innovations from 3E or later, so they lack the tenure of many other features... though there are exceptions, of course.

A few other specific comments:
  • Deities are only important to less than 20% of respondents. That asks for more questions.
  • Great Wheel is significantly more popular than World Axis, but neither is important to a majority of fans for D&D's feel. That suggests to me that the cosmology/lore changes were probably not the major factor in 4E's troubles; more likely changes to other, higher-ranking elements.
  • 5E's flagship mechanics, advantage/disadvantage and backgrounds, don't rank highly in "feel". (I am aware that technically both had ancestors before 5E.)

But the above are just my thoughts. What are yours?

If you voted in the poll, you are also invited to elaborate. However, I will repeat from the last thread: please do not criticize the preferences of others. Just let everyone say their piece without judgment.

EDIT: I posted this as a "question" and can't seem to change it to a generic post. The votes on the right therefore don't matter. Carry on.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

clearstream

(He, Him)
Not important to D&D's feel (20% and below):
Creature types [17.4%]
Deities [16.7%]
Great Wheel cosmology [15.9%]
Multiclassing [15.9%]
Feats [10.6%]
Proficiencies [10.6%]
Damage types [9.1%]
Surprise [5.3%]
Advantage/disadvantage [4.5%]
Conditions [4.5%]
Challenge ratings [3.8%]
World Axis cosmology [3.0%]
Backgrounds [2.3%]
I believe for some of these there was a lack of nuance in the questions. I am thinking especially of Proficiencies - I can accept that few have a stake in the implementation details, yet something that came through strongly in the Next playtest is that players do really care about the Exploration and Social pillars. They don't want all-Combat all-the-time. Damage types and Conditions are other examples - it stands out because it is an implementation detail rather than an outcome: players enjoy the outcomes without having a stake in the implementation.

I think what we might say is that Levels, AC, HP and Saves are mechanics that nail their purpose, while Proficiencies, Damage Types and Conditions are mechanics that speak to a purpose players care about, without nailing it.

That leads to a conclusion somewhat opposite the OP: those "Not important" areas are in fact crucial to future design work, because they suggest the design space for compelling innovation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

clearstream

(He, Him)
Regarding ability scores. In the past 3-4 years, I have introduced a ton of new players to the game. These are people who have never played any edition prior to 5E.

They immediately & instinctively grasp the meaning and importance of the six basic ability scores.

However, the 1-18 scale, add racial modifiers, which then translates into total modifiers ranging from -5 to +5, seems weird to them.

The 1-18 scale very much looks like a needless, clunky artifact of past editions when viewed through the eyes of new players. All they need are the -5 to +5 modifiers.

The ability scores should just be this:
Str -1
Con +2
Dex +3
Int 0
Wis +1
Cha +2
One benefit of the proxied system is that it allows for half-ASIs which plays into a feats system, which itself offers customisation to players who enjoy that.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
Saving Throws are an interesting case study in just how much change players will accept and still consider it to be the same concept. The reality is that the old Save vs Rods, Save vs Death Ray etc really have no similarity whatsoever to Reflex-Fortitude-Will Saving Throws or 5es Save = Ability score check. But despite the difference it gains continuity by maintaining the same naming convention.



This is what I use too and it allows things like saying You have 6 points to distribute across you ability scores min -2 max +3
If allowing minus scores, I'd balance around 2 points. I use that in my campaign (effectively) and it has a worthwhile impact on challenge difficulties across the board.
 




Burnside

Space Jam Confirmed
Supporter
All of which really only matters on the DM side in that the specifics of how the target numbers are arrived at, and what those target numbers are, have changed over time.

Player-side, nothing has changed since 1974: the DM tells you to roll a saving throw, so you roll a d20 and hope to get a high number.

Simply using +5 to -5 doesn't work so well if you're trying to generate random stats on a bell curve, though; which is where the 3-18 (not 1-18, whoever it was who said that!) stat curve comes in handy.

That, and something that's been lost in the move toward +5 to -5 is granularity as now you've only got half the numbers to work with. I'd rather have a system where odd-numbered stats mean just as much as even-numbered stats; where the difference between 12 and 13 is exactly the same as the difference between 13 and 14.

I appreciate what you’re saying, but generating random stats on a bell curve isn’t something the vast majority of players care about.

To your second point, in a -5 to +5 system, odd numbers DO mean as much as even ones.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
To eliminate the issue you raise. The two things have little to do with each other otherwise.
A benefit I see is that it provides a valuable anchor for balancing feats, so that the mechanical impact of a feat can be considered against a known scale (albeit this would also be true if feats were anchored against +s... just with less fidelity). The designability of a system is a factor in the success of that system for players.

I think that wasn't leveraged as effectively as it could have been in 5e. Now that the design is in place and extensively playtested, it is a very worthwhile affordance for a future version.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
I appreciate what you’re saying, but generating random stats on a bell curve isn’t something the vast majority of players care about.
I think they care about some of the outcomes of that bell curve - i.e. that extremes are rarer than averages, and that overshadowing is mitigated - albeit those outcomes could be achieved another way. I personally favour a deck of 12 cards, drawn in pairs with no substitution.
 

Burnside

Space Jam Confirmed
Supporter
I think they care about some of the outcomes of that bell curve - i.e. that extremes are rarer than averages, and that overshadowing is mitigated - albeit those outcomes could be achieved another way. I personally favour a deck of 12 cards, drawn in pairs with no substitution.

Different strokes. I am so unhappy with randomly rolled stats that if a DM insisted on using them rather than letting players go with point buy or standard array, I likely wouldn’t play at their table (unless it was a one-shot).
 

Remove ads

Top