D&D General Less is More: Why You Can't Get What You Want in D&D

Staffan said:

Sure, at some point you get diminishing returns on the number of choices. But I think what's important is to have distinct choices.

Looking at your car analogy, if I want to buy a VW ID.7 Tourer Pro I have these choices for color: Moonstone Grey (the only solid, the others are metallic), Aquamarine Blue (dark blue), Glacier White, Grenadilla Black, Scale Silver, or Stonewashed Blue (light blue). That list could definitely use a few more options – all the colors are super boring. You'd need to add something like a red, a green, a yellow, and a purple. Maybe an orange. But you don't need to have both a fire red and a strawberry red and a dark red – pick one.

To me, the current class choices in D&D is a bit like the VW. There are a bunch of theoretical choices, but none that appeal to me. What's more, if you add in sub-classes that's like different shades of the same color. I can pick moss green, leaf green, teal, or lime green, but nothing purple.

Click to expand...

Snarf Zagyg said:

So, given that the last few pages have managed to turn into my favorite topic ... ME ... I thought I would at least briefly interject to see if I could try and re-direct the thread back to the original topic.

This, and the post you responded to ( @Oofta ) are both articulating a major issue with D&D releases, and something that I was discussing in the OP that I think speaks to the design philosophy of 5e that we've seen so far.

Without going too far into the weeds on the history of released, I think it is instructive to see that 5e is one of the longest-lived released of D&D that we've had, and certain the longest of the WoTC era. Moreover, the new 5e isn't a complete change as the ones before (3e-4e-5e) but is more akin to the 1e-2e transition- but maybe even less than that.

I think that one of the reasons for that is the comparative simplicity of the design, and because WoTC has been very hesitant to pump out more official crunch. To the extent that they do put out more official crunch, it is almost always tied into a specific setting. This has allowed it to continue and thrive without needing a hard reset.

In addition, the smaller number of choices in the core rules* continue to make it easier for new players to pick up, and the design philosophy (including bounded accuracy) means that while optimization is still something players can do, it's not like 3e where players would be punished for making "incorrect" choices with their characters.

*Again, this is a relative statement. D&D is not easy compared to many TTRPGs. But 5e is relatively easy compared to crunchier games, and to past editions, for many players.

The disadvantage with this is that, for people that really like the crunch, or like tons of options, you might find it lacking. Which is okay! Different people have different preferences. You can - (1) homebrew, (2) use 3PP, or (3) play a game that is more suited to your interests.

I would say that the choices made by the designers both make 5e an excellent game for the intended market, but also limit the design space for that group of people that really want advanced options. While there is a lot of great 3PP, IME there are limits to how diverse they can be given the underlying constraints in 5e.

Click to expand...

Oofta said:

Of course there will always be a bloat and 5E hasn't been immune to it. But there's a difference between having a bit of a beer bloat belly and Mr. Creosote.

Click to expand...

Snarf Zagyg said:

*Again, this is a relative statement. D&D is not easy compared to many TTRPGs. But 5e is relatively easy compared to crunchier games, and to past editions, for many players.

The disadvantage with this is that, for people that really like the crunch, or like tons of options, you might find it lacking. Which is okay! Different people have different preferences. You can - (1) homebrew, (2) use 3PP, or (3) play a game that is more suited to your interests.

I would say that the choices made by the designers both make 5e an excellent game for the intended market, but also limit the design space for that group of people that really want advanced options. While there is a lot of great 3PP, IME there are limits to how diverse they can be given the underlying constraints in 5e.

Click to expand...

Belen said:

Less crunch is the reason I am playing 5e. 3.5 and PF1 burned me out. The sheer volume of rules, conditional rules, conditional modifiers, was awful. I started playing Cypher system and even a jaunt back to 2e.

I find it much easier to add crunch to the game than delete it.

Click to expand...

Alzrius said:

It's the opposite for me. 5E having so little crunch is a huge part of the reason I just can't get into it.

I've mentioned before that part of how I measure how much I like a piece of art (that is, any instance of a creative work in a particular medium) is how many distinct modes I can engage with it in, i.e. how many different ways it "speaks to me." Each such mode is distinct, in that they're separate from each other, and the presence of one doesn't detract from another (the Stormwind fallacy is a reminder of this). In that regard, role-playing as an activity is distinct from engaging with the mechanical underpinnings of a given system. When the latter is absent (or rather, dramatically reduced), the former doesn't suddenly become that much more dynamic; it's just there, with nothing else to appreciate.

Click to expand...

Belen said:

I get it; however, I maintain that it is easier to add crunch to the base system than remove it.

Click to expand...

Alzrius said:

I've always found it easier to point to something in the rules and say "see that? We're not using it" than to have to write/find new rules for something that I want, but to each their own.

Click to expand...

Belen said:

That works at times; however, if there is a heavy base crunch in the game, then it becomes more difficult. I am thinking about the way extra attacks worked in 3.5/PF1 with modifiers that could be conditional (ie. you get a +2 here or a +4 there.) Many of the feats added a lot of mechanics as well and every class got feats.

You cannot rule away a lot of the base assumptions of that edition. I loved it for a long time but it ended up burning me out multiple times as a DM. I often took time off of gaming because the complexity and the rules lawyering and the sheer amount of rules could be overwhelming. I swore off using minis and battle maps because of 3.5/PF1.

People often got upset during the game because some were prepared and had every bit of math worked out while others took forever to complete a turn and could never learn the game.

I would still play in a 3.5 or PF1 game, but I will never DM it again. Since I am always a DM and never a player, I really appreciate the balance of 5e.

Click to expand...