D&D 5E Does/Should D&D Have the Player's Game Experience as a goal?

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes it does. That's why the system submits to the DM. They know that trusting in a DM's judgement is the best way to have a good gaming experience.

Though I find this reasoning is used, nowadays, to never bother designing worthwhile rules in the first place.

"This thing is much too specific and contextual for us to design, it is genuinely best for the DM to work out the details herself" is fine; 13A does that and I am all for it in the few places it shows up.

"Eh, things might work differently at every table, so this basic thing everyone will use and depend on can be left without any real content in it, they'll figure it out" is not fine.

Recognizing the limitations of system design is good. Simply not bothering to design because the DM can figure it out is bad. 5e massively favors the latter, not the former.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You'd have to do it for every campaign, likely literally every encounter. You're talking about feedback on literally millions of incompatible scenarios. Or ... one DM can figure out what works best just like we've been doing for half a century.

Except that they won't be that incompatible. Because it turns out that people, despite their myriad differences, are actually mostly the same.

 

[Hussar]

Emphasis mine: So is it easy... or hard??

Something can be fairly easy, but time consuming. Which is what I said. It's not overly complicated, just time consuming because of the sheer number of items.

But. again, you're insisting that because the system isn't perfect, then there's no point. Ignoring, of course, the fact that 3ed had such a system and it worked rather well.

 

[Hussar]

Except that they won't be that incompatible. Because it turns out that people, despite their myriad differences, are actually mostly the same.

I know right? It's almost like things like Adventure Paths don't exist. Considering how unbelievably different and unique every single table is, how could one possibly create adventures that could be played across different tables? Each table is so unique that it shares virtually nothing with any other table apparently.

 

[Oofta]

Except that they won't be that incompatible. Because it turns out that people, despite their myriad differences, are actually mostly the same.

Every campaign, all the players, all the DMs, every encounter is the same? Really?

 

[Imaro]

Every campaign, all the players, all the DMs, every encounter is the same? Really?

Why of course they are that's why there is only a single campaign setting for sale and one adventure...

 

[Imaro]

Y

If i knew what a ragoon was, I'd have something of an answer.

They are delicious....

 

[Imaro]

Though I find this reasoning is used, nowadays, to never bother designing worthwhile rules in the first place.

"This thing is much too specific and contextual for us to design, it is genuinely best for the DM to work out the details herself" is fine; 13A does that and I am all for it in the few places it shows up.

"Eh, things might work differently at every table, so this basic thing everyone will use and depend on can be left without any real content in it, they'll figure it out" is not fine.

Recognizing the limitations of system design is good. Simply not bothering to design because the DM can figure it out is bad. 5e massively favors the latter, not the former.

Are magic item guidelines/price lists common in most games? Outside of D&D could you name a few that have implemented them?

 

[Oofta]

Why of course they are that's why there is only a single campaign setting for sale and one adventure...

That come with pre-gen characters of course.

 

[pemerton]

Are magic item guidelines/price lists common in most games? Outside of D&D could you name a few that have implemented them?

Burning Wheel, Torchbearer2e, Rolemaster - those are the ones I'm familiar with.