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

[billd91]

I would argue the game's rules lend themselves to a high action kill monsters and take their stuff game style. I certainly embrace that style in my D&D campaigns.

Others would argue the rules are just a toolbox that permit resolutions in a cooperative story-telling activity. I suspect a consideration of the players’ game experience would be a non-starter for these folks.

I know this is a bit rambling and full of half-thoughts, but here is where I am coming from:
My main group recently switched from 5e to another system. The game play is radically different. I have observed this over and over again through the years.

Yes, I'd say that games, by their design, do tend to favor certain kinds of player experiences. I don't think that's particularly controversial. If we envision gameplay experience as a multidimensional space, with different factors (action, deadliness, immersion, ease of play, etc) being different dimensions, each game takes up a particular area within that space. And, yes, as written, D&D tends toward high action and monster killing in its default area - those factors would be emphasized with the game's experience space - meaning a notable presence along those dimensions.

But each game, as implemented at the game table with different players and GMs, modifies the game so it fits a slightly different space. And there would be various overlapping areas within that game play experience space that would represent a game with different options in place. Implement the slower healing variations for 5e, the gameplay area shifts along the appropriate dimensions in the game play space. The more toolkit oriented the game is with its rules and features, the broader the potential gameplay experience area can be, and the less focused, when viewed as a whole.

And, of course, different games with different rules and different designs will occupy different gameplay experience areas within the same multidimensional space. If everything were squashed into 2 dimensions, and D&D represented a circle, Call of Cthulhu might represent an oval that partly overlaps that D&D circle because it's different but has some similarities in gameplay experience.

4e, being comparatively more specialized, alienated a lot of fans. A lot of them.

I think, therefore, it's fair to say that an entire edition of DnD should not have a particular player experience in mind.

With respect to games that change with editions, you're going to have differences in the gameplay experience area because of changes in the rules and design values. It's inevitable. How well the different gameplay experiences conform to each other may help identify how well a game will be received by the existing market. Too different, and people may not move with the edition change because of those changes (there may be a host of additional reasons people don't move including sunk costs, poor relations between publisher and market, etc). On the other hand, slower morphs in the gameplay experience area may meet with more acceptance, even to the point where the game is markedly different several iterations along.

 

[Hussar]

See my previous post. More rules does not necessarily make a better game or experience. It just creates a different experience. D&D doesn't tell you how to handle non-combat encounters in details because they tried that with 4E and, while it had some interesting ideas, it wasn't popular enough to carry over to 5E unlike some other concepts.

Again, we're talking past each other. Who said anything about "more rules"?

5e is very explicit in how to handle skill checks. You, as the player, declare your intent, and the DM then tells you what to roll (if anything). Skills are very DM dependent in 5e. That is a conscious design choice. Compare to 3e, where the players declared skill checks, and very often could straight up declare successes for many tasks. Add to that, the notion of "Take 10" and "Take 20", meant that the player could tell the DM, "I'm going to make my best effort to achieve this task, right now." And, so long as there was no direct consequence of failure, the player could straight up do that. You want to open a lock? Take 20 - is your skill high enough? You open the lock. The DM is completely cut out of the equation.

5e doesn't work like that at all. In 5e, you are to tell the DM that you want to open the lock. The DM may, or may not, depending, call for a roll and your success is largely based on what the DM decides.

This has nothing at all to do with "more" or "less" rules.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The cooking analogy seem to apply here: does/should cooking have to be about the food? Kinda, yeah, because if there isn't food being made it's no longer cooking.

But "it's about food" is also so broad as to not really mean anything: there's a lot of type of food out there, and how you cook one type is not just different than how you cook another- it's a whole new set of goals and standards.

 

[Oofta]

Again, we're talking past each other. Who said anything about "more rules"?

5e is very explicit in how to handle skill checks. You, as the player, declare your intent, and the DM then tells you what to roll (if anything). Skills are very DM dependent in 5e. That is a conscious design choice. Compare to 3e, where the players declared skill checks, and very often could straight up declare successes for many tasks. Add to that, the notion of "Take 10" and "Take 20", meant that the player could tell the DM, "I'm going to make my best effort to achieve this task, right now." And, so long as there was no direct consequence of failure, the player could straight up do that. You want to open a lock? Take 20 - is your skill high enough? You open the lock. The DM is completely cut out of the equation.

5e doesn't work like that at all. In 5e, you are to tell the DM that you want to open the lock. The DM may, or may not, depending, call for a roll and your success is largely based on what the DM decides.

This has nothing at all to do with "more" or "less" rules.

I don't necessarily agree with all that, but eh. So what is the issue? That different approaches to gaming and what the goals are will be ... wait for it ... different? That some games, some approaches will work better for some individuals? So?

 

[Imaro]

Whoops, that's what happens when typing while sleepy and on the phone. My total bad.

That should have been @Oofta.

No worries lol!!

 

[Hussar]

I don't necessarily agree with all that, but eh. So what is the issue? That different approaches to gaming and what the goals are will be ... wait for it ... different? That some games, some approaches will work better for some individuals? So?

Well, that does roll back to the OP. Should D&D be explicit in it's player experience goals? Since you are a very big fan of 5e and how it does things, and 5e is fairly explicit in certain areas - such as skills, then I would say that you would agree that D&D should be explicit in its player goals.

The primary difference between how 4e and 5e is presented is that 4e explained WHY these player goals were presented in this or that way. 5e simply presents everything without spending much time on explaining the reasons for why it does this or that. Most of us agree that bounded accuracy, for example, is a good thing. But, AFAIK, that's not actually discussed in the 5e DMG. Bounded accuracy is presented - but, it's never really explained as to why they went this way.

Which, honestly, seems to fit with 5e's presentation all the way along. Very few decision points are ever explained - they're just presented fait acompli.

 

[Oofta]

Well, that does roll back to the OP. Should D&D be explicit in it's player experience goals? Since you are a very big fan of 5e and how it does things, and 5e is fairly explicit in certain areas - such as skills, then I would say that you would agree that D&D should be explicit in its player goals.

Well, I guess that's where this loses me. The game is pretty explicit about what it is, what is expected out of people. It's right there in the intro to the PHB

The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. It shares elements with childhood games of make-believe. Like those games, D&D is driven by imagination. It’s about picturing the towering castle beneath the stormy night sky and imagining how a fantasy adventurer might react to the challenges that scene presents.​

I don't think has a lot of specific rules for the out of combat it relies largely on free play - but you seem to disagree with that statement. So I have no idea what the words "explicit player goals" means. Player goals are pretty clearly stated, PC goals vary from session to session.

The primary difference between how 4e and 5e is presented is that 4e explained WHY these player goals were presented in this or that way. 5e simply presents everything without spending much time on explaining the reasons for why it does this or that. Most of us agree that bounded accuracy, for example, is a good thing. But, AFAIK, that's not actually discussed in the 5e DMG. Bounded accuracy is presented - but, it's never really explained as to why they went this way.

Which, honestly, seems to fit with 5e's presentation all the way along. Very few decision points are ever explained - they're just presented fait acompli.

A lot is left up to the group, it's designed to be a flexible game with rulings over rules. That's in contrast to 4E which tried to lock everyone down into a very similar experience. But that approach directly influences the player experience by not dictating "this is how thou shalt play". As far as some of the discussion of why, a few people might find it interesting but it doesn't really matter. I also don't remember 4E going into it that much, but it's been over a decade and I don't see what it adds to the discussion in any case.

Either the game tells you specifically how to run things that happen or it doesn't. D&D 5E gets pretty specific for combat and takes a light hand for everything else. But that's part of the experience that they are going for.

 

[Hussar]

D&D 5E gets pretty specific for combat and takes a light hand for everything else. But that's part of the experience that they are going for.

But, it actually doesn't take a "light hand". It's very specific. You, the player, declare your intent, and the DM then tells you what to roll and if you succeed in your intent or not. That's not "light handed" at all. The game then gives you pretty specific advice about the difficulty ratings of various tasks and what the game expects of you, as DM, when adjudicating those tasks. Please stop trying to play this as an edition war thing. I'm not even sure why you keep dragging 4e into this, other than 4e is a good example where the player goals were stated more explicitly I suppose.

But, as far as your initial quote goes, that doesn't actually tell me anything about the game. Those aren't goals at all. That's just some nice flavor text.

 

[jgsugden]

We’re talking about two different things.

You are talking about running a campaign. Presumably after a system has been chosen.

I’m talking about choosing a system in the first place.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm talking about choosing a system, and choosing the homebrew rules to use within that system, as part of deciding how to run a campaign.

And I'm talking about doing that with the players, not doing it myself and telling them what I'll run.

I have a strong preference for D&D, but if the group wants to run a western game, for example, we'll be discussing Deadwood, GURPS and my 4E based homebrew as options. If they came to me and said, "Hey, we'd really rather use the 1980s TMNT rule set for a Western Game" I'd have to say I'm not up to speed on those rules, and I wouldn't be up for learning them ... while they might like it, it is too much to ask of me at this time to relearn them to run this game. However, that type of thing is really unlikely.

Usually, they come into it wanting to play D&D and the primary topics are the style of the game - Is it weighted more towards Dungeon Delve, Exploration, Politics or Sandbox? Mature or Kid Friendly? Clear Morality or Shades of Grey? Where would they like their characters to go - towards an empire of followers, towards being a master of a wizard's tower, or a blaze of glory ending? Are they comfortable with other characters being evil or obnoxious as part of the character, or should everyone be more accomodating?

For example, when I started my most recent campaign I'd already played with several of the players and knew their preferences in general. I still asked them to tell me what they were interested in running. We settled on D&D (to nobody's surprise). Once we'd had that discussion I selected which of my homebrew campaigns I'd run (based upon their preferences - what they wanted to do fit in with the campaign that was easiest for me to run), and then I began adjusting it for their stated (and unstated but observed) preferences. Then we did character creation and backstories - and I wove more and more into the backdrop to capitalize upon what they wanted to do. I also reviewed my homebrew rules and figured out which I needed to highlight for them, if any needed to be modified to suit their preferences, and then I began the game.

That is my normal approach. That is a common approach for many DMs that have run games for me and my friends.

 

[Oofta]

But, it actually doesn't take a "light hand". It's very specific. You, the player, declare your intent, and the DM then tells you what to roll and if you succeed in your intent or not. That's not "light handed" at all. The game then gives you pretty specific advice about the difficulty ratings of various tasks and what the game expects of you, as DM, when adjudicating those tasks. Please stop trying to play this as an edition war thing. I'm not even sure why you keep dragging 4e into this, other than 4e is a good example where the player goals were stated more explicitly I suppose.

But, as far as your initial quote goes, that doesn't actually tell me anything about the game. Those aren't goals at all. That's just some nice flavor text.

Okay. I disagree, but whatever. To me "Should D&D have the player's experience as a goal" is basically word salad. Every game has the player experience as a goal and this conversation is going nowhere.