D&D (2024) Survey Launch | Player's Handbook Playtest 5 | Unearthed Arcana | D&D

[Stalker0]

A properly designed system shouldn't be ambiguous; it should present clear methods to resolve actions, and the designers should be very transparent and clear about WHY the rules are written the way they are, then offer guidance to say "but instead, you could do this other thing" if you don't care for the rules as written; in other words, giving the DM the benefit of your experience in game design, rather than leave them stumbling around in the dark.

However, we do have to respect that for 5e.....the concept of "rulings not rules" is baked right into the core of the system. It is one of the pillars that defines this edition.

The designers very intentionally moved away from 3rd edition legalese into a simpler system where the DM was empowered to make more rulings. I can respect that you don't like that model, but its hard to argue that the edition shouldn't do the very thing it set out to do in its design goals.

Now....there is room for clarity and improvement, as we hope to see in one dnd. The stealth rules are an excellent example, as they are so unclear and confusing....AND so incredibly powerful....that yes we do need the designers to step in and right the ship. But lets be honest that is going to be the exception not the rule. WOTC seems pretty happy with their design overall, and based on their sales numbers and general user reception....its hard to blame them.

Going back to the flight argument, WOTC is not going to add in a complicated fly system into the core book. Its not going to happen, its completely against their design tenants for 5e. At best, you might see an optional rule in the DMG for a few adjustments, or maybe something in a splat book (again as an optional system). But WOTC is not going back to make combat movement significantly more complicated, their core user base doesn't want that. They like that 5e runs faster and easier than 3e did.

 

[Emberashh]

For my next trick, I'm stating that mages shouldn't have access to skills.

My resolution was that they just don't get much explicit utility magic at all.

Instead most utility uses for magic are served by means of improvising spells (re: skill check), which comes with its own unique brand of risk compared to typical skills (something akin to Mercurial magic), and the few explicit things they get that won't have any inherent risk to using, will not only be locked behind crafting, but also won't be the dime a dozen "turn off these game mechanics" buttons that 5e is inundated with.

 

[Remathilis]

D&D magic would be so much easier to balance if it was just escalating levels of fireball.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Okay, but you also cited it. And no, this one of all the others I think is absolutely an attack on your argument. It was a gross overstatement and I don't feel bad about calling it hysterical.


That was within the same post and while I can understand this a bit more as a personal attack, I still find it as largely commenting the overstatement of things.

Whatever man, you weren't even the person I was responding to. Of course you are going to justify your own actions as being correct. The point wasn't to make you feel bad. The point was to respond to someone else about their declarations.

No, I disagree. It comes off as a slippery slope because of your initially comments and continually pushing things further and further ("Why not this? Why not this?"). It is not just a whataboutism, but rather that it feels like you are continually pushing down a road to where it feeds into the idea that that you felt I was trying to modify the whole system, which fed into how that looked ("Why not this" --> "You're basically changing the whole system!". These are not direct quotes but trying to hit the tenor of what it seemed like you were talking about).

Digging in is not a slippery slope. And I kept pushing and digging to try and find the real things you wanted to change. We seemed to have found them, I offered suggestions.... and you've completely ignored the suggestions in favor of just going on and on about how terrible of a person I am and focusing on how bad everything I've done is.

Also, not every part of the discussion is about the same thing. The posts tend to fragment and fracture as we respond to points. I tried to keep the system modification talk to only the one part (which you have still refused to clarify). I failed in that? Oh well, I've made myself clear multiple times since then, so it isn't like you don't know what the intent was.

My indignation was not a "sit-down, shut up and accept my rule changes" as much as frustration at constantly being questioned as to why this or that and feeling like my intentions were being misinterpreted. I am fully willing to talk about other ideas and concepts, but that did not feel like the argument.

And at this point, I'm just not interested with reengaging on the subject, so I'll leave all talk of "flight" at that.

Discussions involve being questioned. How is anyone supposed to follow a design if they don't question it? Your intentions were misinterpreted? Well, perhaps that was because your intentions weren't clear, and those questions were to seek that clarity and understand.

And despite being "fully willing" to disuss other ideas... you've STILL never addressed mine. You just want to complain that I dared to question and push and seek clarity.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There is room for more freeform systems, but as a game designer and developer I don't want to play a system that makes me use those skills at the table outside of strictly narrative elements.

And many of us do. But 5e doesn’t really require developing game content to resolve skill checks.

The actual discussion on rules vs. freeform is its own thread, I was just making my position clear. I have enough experience and a quick enough mind that I can design an elaborate system on the fly, but I don't want to. That's a preference position.

Why would you do so, is my question.

What elaborate system is required to resolve letting a player use acrobatics to ignore difficult terrain, or athletics to increase their speed momentarily, or do parkour tricks to get somewhere?

You just…determine how difficult it is, using the dmg DC advice if needed, and either ask for one or more checks, or narrate a result when the result isn’t in doubt.

 

[Incenjucar]

And many of us do. But 5e doesn’t really require developing game content to resolve skill checks.

Why would you do so, is my question.

What elaborate system is required to resolve letting a player use acrobatics to ignore difficult terrain, or athletics to increase their speed momentarily, or do parkour tricks to get somewhere?

You just…determine how difficult it is, using the dmg DC advice if needed, and either ask for one or more checks, or narrate a result when the result isn’t in doubt.

It's not a matter of being elaborate. I have no interest in making this kind of decision that should instead be covered in the core rules. I want to spend my energy making decisions on novel things that WotC can't possibly think up, not how basic movement works. My preferences are not up for debate, so please let's not derail this.

 

[James Gasik]

Thinking about it, the problem with this sort of thing is, since it's not something characters can natively do (bound around the battlefield like Jackie Chan), unless they gain some ability to do so, a DM has to decide if characters are meant to have such abilities. Would they be broken to just let everyone do?

The Thief, for example, can fast climb and make longer running jumps as an ability. Should someone who isn't a Thief be able to do this? Should it be gate kept by a Feat? If it's simply a matter of hitting the DC on a check, how difficult should it be?

The book says Athletics checks can allow for longer jumps, but infamously, no system in the PHB tells you how. It's up to the DM to just decide "I think you can exceed your jumping distance by (arbitrary amount) by making (arbitrary check)". A little bit of real guidance would be really helpful for some people.

Many DM's, I get, have a good enough handle on their game that they can figure out how fair a given stunt would be at a given difficulty, but some would flounder, and, of course, if your DM in one game lets you leap 30' in the air to attack a flying dragon, it's very likely another DM would laugh at you even asking to perform such a "silly anime stunt".

You're basically being asked to make your own version of D&D, and while that's a huge feature for some, others can flail about not really sure where to start.

I know when I first started DMing, long ago in an edition far far away (AD&D), I often felt the urge to make houserules. But a lot of my early houserules fell flat because I had no idea what I was doing, and I did more damage to my games. Nowadays, I prefer to run games as close to the rules in the book as possible, because I've learned that nobody is going to remember what I've put in a six or seven page rules document, but anyone can read the books, lol.

5e is literally begging for house rules, however, and that great freedom can be a stumbling block for some. Some people can look at an empty page and immediately get to work creating. Others work best within set boundaries.

Over the years, D&D has been both a boundless and a bound system, ranging from original flavor, where you basically didn't have skills or much in the way of abilities, so everything was "ask the DM and they can decide what you need to do", all the way to AD&D which had niche protection and bespoke subsystems, to 3.x where there was a real attempt to provide rules for just about every darned thing.

I kind of prefer my D&D to be somewhere in the middle, but it's obvious that some prefer looser rules and others prefer tighter rules, and, just like every iteration of the game, the current version suits some people and irks others.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I do have an issue, as I stated above, with the presentation that "all WotC customers" actually means "all D&D players". I'm sure the survey is pretty accurate under the first description, but they're using the second. Say what you mean!

What survey? We are more likely looking at aggregated data from decades of market research, including but hardly limited to surveys.

It's not a matter of being elaborate. I have no interest in making this kind of decision that should instead be covered in the core rules. I want to spend my energy making decisions on novel things that WotC can't possibly think up, not how basic movement works. My preferences are not up for debate, so please let's not derail this.

If you presented them as merely preference, you wouldn’t get anyone’s hackles up. Instead you call things failures of design for the every reasons that others enjoy them, insist on implying that you know better than the D&D team how a game “should” be designed.

You’re right that it’s your preference. Your language doesn’t indicate that you’re aware that it is nothing more than your preference.

 

[Incenjucar]

If you presented them as merely preference, you wouldn’t get anyone’s hackles up. Instead you call things failures of design for the every reasons that others enjoy them, insist on implying that you know better than the D&D team how a game “should” be designed.

You’re right that it’s your preference. Your language doesn’t indicate that you’re aware that it is nothing more than your preference.

I was pretty clear on that point!

I am firmly in the "the more the DM has to decide, the more the designers have failed" camp.

There is room for more freeform systems, but as a game designer and developer I don't want to play a system that makes me use those skills at the table outside of strictly narrative elements.

The actual discussion on rules vs. freeform is its own thread, I was just making my position clear. I have enough experience and a quick enough mind that I can design an elaborate system on the fly, but I don't want to. That's a preference position.

Not sure how more clear I can be about it being a preference than stating it is a preference.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I was pretty clear on that point!





Not sure how more clear I can be about it being a preference than stating it is a preference.

I mean, not wording it as “a failure” if it doesn’t meet your criteria would do vastly more than “games designed this way are bad and this other way is how they should be designed…but that’s just a preference.”