Let's Get Real - the DM's responsibility is balance

[heavyfuel]

This is hubris.

People on this forum aren't better than the people who enjoy the game. They don't have hidden knowledge or insight. People really do enjoy the game because they like it not because they 'don't know any better'.

I never said - or even implied - we were.

What I said is that new gamers have no frame of reference. Y'know. Cuz they're new.

[ad_hoc]

Depends how broken they think they are.

Let's say you love Fallout 3. Will anyone defend that game as being free of glitches and bugs? Not anyone who's actually PLAYED it, for sure! But it still gets recommended, because it's tons of fun in SPITE of its bugs.

Likewise, there could be people who have tons of faults with 5E, but it's still a great time. So they play with their friends, not because of flaws, but in spite of them.

And I don't think it's hubris to say that many of the people on this forum have taken a more critical eye to 5E and other TTRPG systems than newcomers. We're not BETTER than a bright-eyed sprout who just started and is rocking their Half-Elf Berserker, but we're more likely to notice when something goes wrong and be able to fix it.

Put another way, we're the cynics who notice all the bad stuff, but hopefully aren't too cynical to at least try and fix the issues. They're the newbies who are just having a fun time, and good for them. 5E is fun, when you play with good people, and they deserve all the time in the world of enjoying it before they become crotchety old cynics like us. :P

It is hubris and you're being condescending. You're assuming you're right. Could it not be that you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and then declaring the hole to be broken? You believe that you are infallible so you don't actually notice that the peg is square and that is why it doesn't fit. The game works, just not how you're trying to play it.

Your reasoning's sound, but we aren't exactly the average player at a 5e table.

We are players on a fairly-unknown DnD internet forum, on the topic of modifying DM behavior and game mechanics to balance around the players. That's not normal.

For contrast, the other 3 party members of my last session argued what kind of skill we should be rolling for a "Vibe Check" for the area.

We have more experience, more passion, and we learn this game for fun. I don't know about the rest of us, but I'm fairly confident I can recite all of the 5e mounting rules and most of the unique interactions by memory.


To put simply, we are doctors. We're better at this sort of thing because we put in the effort to be, and the average player probably doesn't have enough system-mastery to understand or care, they're still figuring out how to play a level 3 Fighter optimally. Most of the people I play with don't even know what a Hit Die is, they wouldn't be able to give any insight on anything that wasn't directly relevant to what they're playing, and even then it'd be limited to how they​ were playing it.

A lot of players in the position of having a party-member who outshines them will just think that they're playing the game poorly. However, after playing different kinds of characters, I can definitely attest to the fact that there is a difference in how you can optimize one character vs. another, and it's not always fair or fun, and it's not even always the player's fault.

I tried playing a Barbarian the same way I would a Wizard, trying to leverage skills and tools instead of magic and be a master of utility. It was the worst character I've ever played, and the best advice I got for it was "Don't play a Barbarian". Sure enough, I rerolled a Warlock, tried playing it the same way, and it was the most fun I've ever had. The problem here is, I can make a Warlock that plays like a Barbarian, but the reverse isn't nearly as true without losing a LOT of what makes Barbarians good in the first place.

You're doctors? Really?

Listen to yourself. This is the height of hubris and incredibly toxic and insulting.

You're playing a non-competitive game competitively and then declaring yourself the winner.

Do you even play competitive games? How much money have you won and what kinds of awards or trophies?

There are people in the world who take strategy game play seriously and they need to prove they are good by winning.

As someone who has played games to a high level and even supported myself financially for a while on them I can tell you that you have no metric to know whether you're actually good at playing D&D. I've played competitive games with people who were convinced that their strategies were correct. No matter how much I tried to teach them why they were wrong they just had more arguments and they were good at convincing others of their argument's merits. Thing is though, they always lost. It didn't matter that they were good at argumentation and convincing others there was a way to definitively show who was better. The surprising thing to me and was a great learning experience was to see these people still convinced that they were the greatest players despite losing over and over.

You think you're doctors but you have no way to verify that.

I never said - or even implied - we were.

What I said is that new gamers have no frame of reference. Y'know. Cuz they're new.

The game has been out for 7 years. Every year rate of sales increase a lot.

Not only is D&D attracting millions of new players it is retaining large amounts of those players who continue to buy supplements.

The new people have had time to properly assess whether they like playing and whether the game works. And they do and it does.

[Unoriginal]

It is hubris and you're being condescending. You're assuming you're right. Could it not be that you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and then declaring the hole to be broken? You believe that you are infallible so you don't actually notice that the peg is square and that is why it doesn't fit. The game works, just not how you're trying to play it.

So just to be clear, your position is that 5e does not have any bugs, badly-written rules, or badly thought-out rules, and that the people who think that are playing the game wrong?

[ad_hoc]

So just to be clear, your position is that 5e does not have any bugs, badly-written rules, or badly thought-out rules, and that the people who think that are playing the game wrong?

Not game breaking ones.

People make statements about the game being fatally flawed when really it just doesn't work the way they want it to.

The Ability Check system for example is great and works very well for most groups. Just, it seems, not for many people on this board. That doesn't make it broken or poorly designed, just not in line with the tastes here.

"I don't like it" is different than "it's bad and broken" and the latter is the claim that is often made. Some people have gone so far to say that if a person likes a rule and doesn't have any issues regarding it that they are just not good enough to see the flaws for what they are.

That is hubris, insulting, condescending, and ultimately self limiting.

Seeing a rule as being broken limits the ability to see how it could actually work well because the conclusion that it doesn't work has already been reached.

[JNAProductions]

So just to be clear, your position is that 5e does not have any bugs, badly-written rules, or badly thought-out rules, and that the people who think that are playing the game wrong?

Exactly that. I like 5E. It’s fun to play, and by and large, it works reasonably well. I will admit, I used some hyperbole in my post, but it seems rather more hyperbolic to say 5E is without issue.

Edit: I think you’re assuming more into what we’re saying than what we actually mean.

[Man_Over_Game]

You're doctors? Really?

That's what a good DM is. Someone who knows better than you, might be a little overbearing and always seems to know what's happening before you do.

We know the game. I'd say only about 15% of players I've ever played with could actually understand the kind of stuff we bicker about on here.

We've experienced more, taught ourselves more, challenged ourselves more than most.

We're the ones debating over the morale ramifications of player-to-DM / rookie-to-veteran relationships, right now.

I'm not saying we are better, but I think we know better. Mostly because of difference in experience, but that's worth recognition in any field.

It's not weird to say that your DM knows better than you. Most of us are DMs. I'm not saying this reflects every player, table, or their DM, but I don't think I'm the only one who's ever thought DMing sometimes felt a little bit like herding spastic children through a dungeon.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Exactly that. I like 5E. It’s fun to play, and by and large, it works reasonably well. I will admit, I used some hyperbole in my post, but it seems rather more hyperbolic to say 5E is without issue.

Edit: I think you’re assuming more into what we’re saying than what we actually mean.

Personally, I acknowledge that there are things that could work better for me and my groups. I'm not arrogant enough to make a categorical assumption about what would work better globally. In part because I don't have anything beyond anecdotal evidence that there's a problem that extends further than my particular experience.

And all the "big issues" I've seen brought up on the forums do turn out to be issues of how it's used and how people go way beyond the design intent, not fundamental issues with the system itself as designed. At least in my eyes, because if they were fundamental issues, they'd affect a broader scope of play than just "highly optimized people playing in the forum way, generally with one or two big fights per adventuring day and never taking short rests".

There certainly are global issues as seen by the developers--the errata documents are evidence of that. As do the changing design patterns. My big pushback here is against the idea that whatever optimization-focused, 3e-dominated (in mindset if nothing else) forums come up with as "big flaws" must really be flaws of the system rather than just matters of taste and usage patterns. Which is what all the available evidence says that most of them (and all of the big glaring ones) are.

[Pex]

If the point is to create a game that people find fun then it's not ill advised when people like it.

We're not talking about 'a few' people liking it. We're talking about 10s of millions of new gamers liking it and a few people on the internet thinking it's broken.

Maybe the rules aren't broken, you just don't like them? Maybe the rules aren't broken, they just don't work with the way you're trying to play the game which was not to the designer's intent.

It's okay not to like something. That doesn't mean it's broken.

The reverse is also true. Just because someone likes something doesn't mean it isn't broken. Personally I put a difference between "broken" and "bad". Broken is something that makes the game unplayable, too powerful, too weak, or the game mechanics fails. Something that is bad can still allow the game to function, but it is of poor quality in some manner. Other people may like it, but it doesn't change opinion that someone finds it bad for the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The reverse is also true. Just because someone likes something doesn't mean it isn't broken. Personally I put a difference between "broken" and "bad". Broken is something that makes the game unplayable, too powerful, too weak, or the game mechanics fails. Something that is bad can still allow the game to function, but it is of poor quality in some manner. Other people may like it, but it doesn't change opinion that someone finds it bad for the game.

Unplayable for whom? Anyone? No matter how they want to play? If the game doesn't support playing as a 3-nosed potted plant, is that unplayable, just because someone won't play unless they can play as such?

Too powerful/too weak in whose judgement? Anyone? No matter how they want to play? Judgements on what is appropriate and what the baseline should be are all over the map.

My point is that "someone finds it bad for the game" can describe anything. It's entirely subjective. And as a result, your "broken" and "bad" both come down to "things I don't particularly like". Which is useless for anyone but yourself.

Broken is a pejorative, and a very strong one. Calling something broken is saying that no one should use it. Yet it's a claim thrown around effectively without evidence, with only subjective taste as the criteria. And most of the fixes would break things for many other people. Which is a key indicator that the "flaw" in question is really just a matter of taste and something that individual tables should adjust to taste.

Edit: as a software developer, there's a distinction between "defects" and "features". Defects are things that
a) have a clear requirement--it's clear what the expected behavior is
b) reproducibly don't meet that expected behavior by following supported paths. You can write a set of steps that, if followed, produces the unexpected behavior in question. Where each step is something the system supports.

Defects need to be fixed. Features are much more open-ended. They're "what if we changed it to work like <that>?" And feature requests can be closed as "won't do"--things that would require too much work for too little return, things that go against the design philosophy of the system or would require standing the architecture on its head, or things that just don't match the aesthetic sense.

5e does have defects. There are places where the wording is confusing, a few instances of absolute non-sense (this one's fixed, but the 3rd bullet point of Grappler is an example), etc. But the things people are talking about here? Those are feature requests, most which require significant overhauls of core principles. It's not clear what most of the solutions would even look like, let alone whether they'd fit into the underlying philosophy. And really only the developers have the ability to say that something is a defect, because they're the only ones who have access to the underlying requirements.

[Captain Panda]

It's FINE that certain classes have advantages - whether its combat, social or exploration - but no one should be left out.

I disagree, or at least think that this is something that varies from table to table. Let's suppose the tone set at session zero is: "This world is dangerous, it will not scale down to you if you make poor build choices or choices in combat. Enemies are going to be genuinely fighting their best, based on how intelligent they are, and if you play poorly you can die."

Let's say the party takes the attitude that actually, it's the DM's job to balance everything and so any party should be okay, after the above tone is set, and everyone brings a character who is bad at combat to the table. In a campaign where the DM set an expectation that the world would be dangerous and unforgiving. Should the DM rebalance everything to account for the group being weak? Assuming it's not the entire group, but that most of the group listened and brought combat competent characters, but Billy decided to bring a warlock without eldritch blast or any combat spells at all, would it be the DM's responsibility to change the campaign from session zero to accommodate that play? I wouldn't, personally.

I guess it depends on what you mean by balance. I would find it insulting if a DM had a list of encounters planned and, because the party sucks, starts to scale them down and give baby-sized versions of those encounters. It would feel like the world is unrealistic, and that no real challenge is present.

[Pex]

Not game breaking ones.

People make statements about the game being fatally flawed when really it just doesn't work the way they want it to.

The Ability Check system for example is great and works very well for most groups. Just, it seems, not for many people on this board. That doesn't make it broken or poorly designed, just not in line with the tastes here.

"I don't like it" is different than "it's bad and broken" and the latter is the claim that is often made. Some people have gone so far to say that if a person likes a rule and doesn't have any issues regarding it that they are just not good enough to see the flaws for what they are.

That is hubris, insulting, condescending, and ultimately self limiting.

Seeing a rule as being broken limits the ability to see how it could actually work well because the conclusion that it doesn't work has already been reached.

New players can play the game not knowing the flaws are flaws because they have no frame of reference. I know this is possible, because I experienced this exact thing playing 2E. Everything I complain about now of 2E rules and very especially DMing styles I was supportive and accepting way back when because I didn't know any better. I accepted Adversarial DMs, Killer DMs, Stingy DMs, Railroading DMs, Monty Hall DMs because I didn't know there could be any other kind. Reading the 2E DMG I saw how the rules encouraged such DMing, except the Monty Hall DM. I had a favorite 2E DM way back when. What I didn't comprehend at the time was he was my favorite DM because he wasn't Adversarial, Killer, Stingy, nor Railroading. He was the lone 2E DM I had who was never any of those things. Back then that type of DMing was the norm and accepted. 3E taught DMs to play better and players learned not to accept such bad DMing. I learned.

So yes, players new to D&D playing 5E as their first game won't necessarily know or recognize any flaws. They can still not like something, but they don't know it could be better or was better. Those of us who are experienced with D&D recognize the flaws of 5E and will express our opinion of that matter. Those who happen to like those 5E things are welcome to like them, but we who do not will still not and won't keep quiet about it.

Yet, despite all our gripes of 5E, we can still enjoy the game, play the game, and have our fun. We discuss 5E precisely because we enjoy the game. At least for me, if I really hated the game I wouldn't be here discussing it. That's why I have never participated in the 4E Forum. I used to be active in the 3E Forum, but since I don't play it anymore I moved on. I still like it, more so 3.5/Pathfinder 1E, but 5E has won me over I guess. It's still a fun game despite my gripes, but I won't stop griping.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Are you arguing that no critique of a game is ever valid? Even the opening poster walked back from the miscommunication the opening post implied.

YES: Why? Why is it contentious to say "A GM can have valid critiques of the products they purchased"? I am not even saying all critiques are valid. Why are you assuming an unspecified critique must be invalid?

NO: Then why is there an argument? The opening post miscommunicated when it implied all threads critiquing the game are wrong and the GM can never have any valid criticism of the product. A wave of posters can to refute that unintentional claim. Then a second wave (including you) came in apparently with the intent to prove the unintentional claim.

Excluded middle. Huge excluded middle and smuggled assumptions. There are valid critiques. Users can definitely say "This doesn't work how I expect it to", and that's a valid critique--it legitimately doesn't work how the user expects it to. But that doesn't make it a defect in the product. It could be that there's a missing feature, or maybe their expectation doesn't fit the design intent of the system and thus the system is not designed for them. Not being pleased with something is totally fine. But it's not necessarily an indication that something's wrong with the product. Especially in something as "batteries not included/some assembly required" as D&D. If this was a board game or a video game where the requirements are set in stone and there's a clear right way to play--if following the supported path doesn't work, that's a sign of a defect. But in a game where DM intervention is actively expected, having DM intervention isn't a bad thing. It's working as expected.

There are certainly defects. But no one here on the forums is able to make that judgement in any other context than their own table. Only the developers can say that something is a defect, because only the developers have access to the design requirements.

It's the smuggling in of assumptions that I object to--the absolute conflation of "I don't like this" and "this is broken", which is omnipresent here on the forums[1]. I have a very strong objection to the "I don't like it, so therefore it's broken and anyone who does like it has bad taste and should be ashamed" position displayed throughout this forum. I'm pushing for epistemic humility--the (unthinkable) thought that it might just be a matter of opinion. As well as the idea that forum residents (who play very differently and non-representationally from the entire playerbase) are somehow positioned to be "doctors" and "experts".

[1] and many other places--this is common behavior that I find repellant.

[Pex]

Unplayable for whom? Anyone? No matter how they want to play? If the game doesn't support playing as a 3-nosed potted plant, is that unplayable, just because someone won't play unless they can play as such?

Unplayable meaning the game or the Thing itself can't be played, literally. The infinite loops of 5E Wish/Simulacrum chaining and Coffeelock. In 3E the mathematical failure of Truenamer and the humor of Pun Pun.

[Snowbluff]

Yet, despite all our gripes of 5E, we can still enjoy the game, play the game, and have our fun. We discuss 5E precisely because we enjoy the game. At least for me, if I really hated the game I wouldn't be here discussing it. That's why I have never participated in the 4E Forum. I used to be active in the 3E Forum, but since I don't play it anymore I moved on. I still like it, more so 3.5/Pathfinder 1E, but 5E has won me over I guess. It's still a fun game despite my gripes, but I won't stop griping.

This is generally my opinion as well. Most of these games have a decent basis and I derive most of the fun when actually *playing* the game at a table from the people I'm playing with. I didn't realize this until my first 4e game many years ago. 4e is far from my favorite system, but it's enough of a mix up and the DM did a really good job engaging the players.

[Brookshw]

There are certainly defects. But no one here on the forums is able to make that judgement in any other context than their own table. Only the developers can say that something is a defect, because only the developers have access to the design requirements.

What are you on about! Neither D&D Beyond or the PHB list any minimal age recommendation for this game, clearly my 3 1/2 year old should be able to play it as written without me needing to adjust anything. But I have to adjust stuff so clearly it's broken!

Also, trying to game with a 3 1/2 year old is its own challenging fun!

[PhoenixPhyre]

What are you on about! Neither D&D Beyond or the PHB list any minimal age recommendation for this game, clearly my 3 1/2 year old should be able to play it as written without me needing to adjust anything. But I have to adjust stuff so clearly it's broken!

Also, trying to game with a 3 1/2 year old is its own challenging fun!

I had a 5 year old wander through a session. He played an awakened squirrel that bit a zombie on the toe. And then he got bored and wandered off, because just being included was enough. The other players ranged from 7 to 10. And were actually pretty good. As serious and capable as some of my theoretically adult players.

[heavyfuel]

It is hubris and you're being condescending. You're assuming you're right.

The game has been out for 7 years. Every year rate of sales increase a lot.

Not only is D&D attracting millions of new players it is retaining large amounts of those players who continue to buy supplements.

The new people have had time to properly assess whether they like playing and whether the game works. And they do and it does.

It's not hubris to claim that more experienced gamers (not necessarily the ones on this forum) will eventually notice things that newer players might miss. There is no "secret knowledge" as you say I claim, but there is knowledge to be gained from playing the game with multiple DMs and multiple groups at different levels of plays. This isn't a secret, this is common sense.

What does the game being out for 7 years have anything to do with the discussion?

A new player is a new player, regardless of how long it's been since a system's release. Hell, earlier this year we introduced a friend to our 3.5 group. He's never played TTRPGs before, and he's obviously a new player, even if the system's been out for over two decades.

[Brookshw]

I had a 5 year old wander through a session. He played an awakened squirrel that bit a zombie on the toe. And then he got bored and wandered off, because just being included was enough. The other players ranged from 7 to 10. And were actually pretty good. As serious and capable as some of my theoretically adult players.

6 seems like a good point where they can actually pay attention for a while. My buddy's 7 and 11 year olds could be lots of fun to play with, even if it was just to laugh at the older one dropping back to back fireballs on himself in an unintentional suicide.

On topic, I generally agree with you so take this as a voice of support, albeit one who's had the debate enough times to not want to fully engage.

[Kymme]

There are certainly defects. But no one here on the forums is able to make that judgement in any other context than their own table. Only the developers can say that something is a defect, because only the developers have access to the design requirements.

I can make a pretty clear judgement about the quality of 5e, just from existing on this forum and observing the conversations people have about it. People have been having the same kinds of conversations for a long time, since before 4e, since before 3.5. The same discussions about balance and adversarial DMs and bad communication at the table and players working against each other and total party kills and Rule Zero and extensive houseruling. My judgement is thus: the kinds of conversations people have about 5e, the kinds of difficulties and conflicts they run into when playing and running and discussing the game, are the the natural results of the game's flaws and defects. The design of your game creates the community - it creates the players, it creates the culture that surrounds it. I've played TTRPGs with excellent, clear design, and their communities do not look like this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I can make a pretty clear judgement about the quality of 5e, just from existing on this forum and observing the conversations people have about it. People have been having the same kinds of conversations for a long time, since before 4e, since before 3.5. The same discussions about balance and adversarial DMs and bad communication at the table and players working against each other and total party kills and Rule Zero and extensive houseruling. My judgement is thus: the kinds of conversations people have about 5e, the kinds of difficulties and conflicts they run into when playing and running and discussing the game, are the the natural results of the game's flaws and defects. The design of your game creates the community - it creates the players, it creates the culture that surrounds it. I've played TTRPGs with excellent, clear design, and their communities do not look like this.

These forums are so far from representative that any such judgement is laughable and shows intense bias in and of itself.

These forums are steeped in the 3e RAW Is God mentality that bred such dysfunction, and have strong feedback loops to enforce that zeitgeist.

[Kuulvheysoon]

These forums are so far from representative that any such judgement is laughable and shows intense bias in and of itself.

These forums are steeped in the 3e RAW Is God mentality that bred such dysfunction, and have strong feedback loops to enforce that zeitgeist.

That's a little harsh, man. I'll admit that there's some of that going on, but you're tossing the baby out with the bathwater. You can't paint the entire forum with such a derogatory blanket stament.

[Kymme]

These forums are so far from representative that any such judgement is laughable and shows intense bias in and of itself.

These forums are steeped in the 3e RAW Is God mentality that bred such dysfunction, and have strong feedback loops to enforce that zeitgeist.

Okay I'm just gonna stop you for a second there. Doesn't it feel a little presumptuous to claim that this forum isn't representative of the D&D community? Like, do you claim familiarity with the community at large? Do you have your finger on the pulse of the hobby?

Your explanation for the culture of this forum is... that people are still steeped in some mentality from 3e I've never heard of? I find that explanation laughable and circular. The culture that shapes D&D communities here and across the internet - from reddit to big discord communities to the games I've played with my college friends, arises from the game itself. Otherwise, you wouldn't see all of these newcomers to the hobby posting in places like here and r/D&D with the problems they're having in their home games - problems the community here and on other sites is intimately familiar with, because (and I'm repeating myself here) these problems arise naturally from flaws in the design of D&D.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That's a little harsh, man. I'll admit that there's some of that going on, but you're tossing the baby out with the bathwater. You can't paint the entire forum with such a derogatory blanket stament.

Considering how many of our discussions on some of the more vague rules go with posters pulling our dictionaries and grammar analysis of the players handbook to determine how exactly the sentence is intended to be read, I'd say its not an unfair statement.

I'd even go so far as to agree and say that a majority of the typical posters are prone to exactly what PhoenixPhyre claims. I'll go even further and say that for myself, despite playing all of 1 session of 3.Xe in my life, engage in a lot of the very same behavior.

I'm also the only person in my group that uses these forums (or any DND forums) and it has made a noticeable impact on how I approach 5e vs how my friends approach 5e. They approach things much looser, they're very open to bending rules and they don't agonize of remembering that sage advice ruling on Shield Master or what the most recent "correct" ruling is. I think its fair to say these forums are a bubble and not all that indicative of how people would generally engage with these sorts of things.

I also don't think the statement was meant to be derogatory, I think despite discussion trending towards the "raw is god" direction here people are reasonable enough to understand "yes this is RAW and I prefer it, but you don't have to."

Okay I'm just gonna stop you for a second there. Doesn't it feel a little presumptuous to claim that this forum isn't representative of the D&D community? Like, do you claim familiarity with the community at large? Do you have your finger on the pulse of the hobby?

We're certainly not a large representation, my gut tells me that we might even be an outlier.

Your explanation for the culture of this forum is... that people are still steeped in some mentality from 3e I've never heard of? I find that explanation laughable and circular. The culture that shapes D&D communities here and across the internet - from reddit to big discord communities to the games I've played with my college friends, arises from the game itself. Otherwise, you wouldn't see all of these newcomers to the hobby posting in places like here and r/D&D with the problems they're having in their home games - problems the community here and on other sites is intimately familiar with, because (and I'm repeating myself here) these problems arise naturally from flaws in the design of D&D.

Which problems do you mean here? Your previous comment leads me to believe that you're talking primarily about table dynamics, which is not exactly the fault of game design.

[OldTrees1]

Excluded middle. Huge excluded middle and smuggled assumptions. There are valid critiques. Users can definitely say "This doesn't work how I expect it to", and that's a valid critique--it legitimately doesn't work how the user expects it to. But that doesn't make it a defect in the product. It could be that there's a missing feature, or maybe their expectation doesn't fit the design intent of the system and thus the system is not designed for them. Not being pleased with something is totally fine. But it's not necessarily an indication that something's wrong with the product. Especially in something as "batteries not included/some assembly required" as D&D. If this was a board game or a video game where the requirements are set in stone and there's a clear right way to play--if following the supported path doesn't work, that's a sign of a defect. But in a game where DM intervention is actively expected, having DM intervention isn't a bad thing. It's working as expected.

There are certainly defects. But no one here on the forums is able to make that judgement in any other context than their own table. Only the developers can say that something is a defect, because only the developers have access to the design requirements.

It's the smuggling in of assumptions that I object to--the absolute conflation of "I don't like this" and "this is broken", which is omnipresent here on the forums[1]. I have a very strong objection to the "I don't like it, so therefore it's broken and anyone who does like it has bad taste and should be ashamed" position displayed throughout this forum. I'm pushing for epistemic humility--the (unthinkable) thought that it might just be a matter of opinion. As well as the idea that forum residents (who play very differently and non-representationally from the entire playerbase) are somehow positioned to be "doctors" and "experts".

[1] and many other places--this is common behavior that I find repellant.

First, I apologize for the tone of my previous post. I ended up deleting it.

1) If there are valid critiques, then why are you arguing in this thread? I think the context (opening post miscommunicating and thus labeling all critique as wrong) colors the discourse and makes your push for epistemic humility come across as claiming no critique can be valid.

2) You imported the "so therefore it's broken and anyone who does like it has bad taste and should be ashamed". That is not inherent to the class of threads the opening post was talking about. No part of that escalating hyperbole is inherent to the class of threads as a whole.

3) Since the value of a product is derived from the subjective value others place on it, then there is validity to expressing that evaluation. "I don't like it" is a statement of fact. "I don't like it due to reasons" is a useful statement of fact.

4) There is value in someone reviewing an experience you have not had (see recent thread) or in analyzing why they do/don't like something and thus finding a common thread that others might or might not correlate with (many, but not most, people dislike limited use abilities, I can better understand and articulate my dislike due to reading others express theirs).

5) People can listen to others. Since you know I dislike limited use abilities, you can cite that fact. You are not limited to only your direct experiences. That is why common likes/dislikes become louder while topics with diverse preferences become more colorful.

[ad_hoc]

Okay I'm just gonna stop you for a second there. Doesn't it feel a little presumptuous to claim that this forum isn't representative of the D&D community? Like, do you claim familiarity with the community at large? Do you have your finger on the pulse of the hobby?

Your explanation for the culture of this forum is... that people are still steeped in some mentality from 3e I've never heard of? I find that explanation laughable and circular. The culture that shapes D&D communities here and across the internet - from reddit to big discord communities to the games I've played with my college friends, arises from the game itself. Otherwise, you wouldn't see all of these newcomers to the hobby posting in places like here and r/D&D with the problems they're having in their home games - problems the community here and on other sites is intimately familiar with, because (and I'm repeating myself here) these problems arise naturally from flaws in the design of D&D.

There are 10s of millions of 5e players that started hobby gaming with 5e.

5e message boards are a fringe part of the player base and this one in particular is on the fringe of message boards.

Mike Mearls in 2014 when commenting on the 5e playtest said that one thing they found out is that message boards are not at all representative of the player base. And this was back in 2014 when all the D&D players were from previous editions.

[Kymme]

Which problems do you mean here? Your previous comment leads me to believe that you're talking primarily about table dynamics, which is not exactly the fault of game design.

Problems like "My players keep pulling out their phones at the table" or "My DM won't let us make Diplomacy checks!" or "My player keeps talking every enemy out of fighting them - their rolls are too good, what do I do?" or "the Wizard solo'd three encounters last session and the fighter is feeling left out" or "I had to end my last session three hours early because two of the player characters fought each other" or "another Killer DM rant" or "another overpowered DMPC rant" etc etc. Chalking these things up to table dynamics is obfuscating the real issue - a notable flaw among many in D&D is that it lacks communication tools. There are no mechanics or rules to help everyone at the table be on the same page, to help everyone feel included, to give the GM actual concrete rules to follow, to keep things running smoothly. I think that table dynamics and game design are tightly linked, just like the dynamics of player groups in multiplayer video games is directly linked to how those games are designed.

[Pex]

These forums are so far from representative that any such judgement is laughable and shows intense bias in and of itself.

These forums are steeped in the 3e RAW Is God mentality that bred such dysfunction, and have strong feedback loops to enforce that zeitgeist.

You say that like it's a bad thing. To know the rules is to discuss them. You need to know what a rule is before you can decide to like it or not. Ignoring a rule because you don't like it does not mean the game is perfect even when the game says you can ignore a rule. People like to follow rules when playing a game, and it can be a problem when an important part of the game lacks sufficient rules to play it. They don't want to have to make it up.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Problems like "My players keep pulling out their phones at the table" or "My DM won't let us make Diplomacy checks!" or "My player keeps talking every enemy out of fighting them - their rolls are too good, what do I do?" or "the Wizard solo'd three encounters last session and the fighter is feeling left out" or "I had to end my last session three hours early because two of the player characters fought each other" or "another Killer DM rant" or "another overpowered DMPC rant" etc etc. Chalking these things up to table dynamics is obfuscating the real issue - a notable flaw among many in D&D is that it lacks communication tools. There are no mechanics or rules to help everyone at the table be on the same page, to help everyone feel included, to give the GM actual concrete rules to follow, to keep things running smoothly. I think that table dynamics and game design are tightly linked, just like the dynamics of player groups in multiplayer video games is directly linked to how those games are designed.

You can't enforce behavior through game design and blaming the designers for not trying that hard (because 5e does have guidance on these expectations) is unfair criticism in my opinion. I feel the need to repeat this because I feel it needs to be stressed further: You can't "design" player behavior, you can only encourage it to be certain ways which 5e does about as well as it can.

I suppose you may have a point in that the type of activity attracts a certain kind of person, but again I wouldn't say that you have a basis to call the design lacking or bad on those merits. I don't very much enjoy competitive multiplayers games because a large amount of the interactions I have while playing them are negative but it would be unfair of me to say that those are badly designed games because I have bad experiences with them, my enjoyment is subjective.

[ad_hoc]

Problems like "My players keep pulling out their phones at the table" or "My DM won't let us make Diplomacy checks!" or "My player keeps talking every enemy out of fighting them - their rolls are too good, what do I do?" or "the Wizard solo'd three encounters last session and the fighter is feeling left out" or "I had to end my last session three hours early because two of the player characters fought each other" or "another Killer DM rant" or "another overpowered DMPC rant" etc etc. Chalking these things up to table dynamics is obfuscating the real issue - a notable flaw among many in D&D is that it lacks communication tools. There are no mechanics or rules to help everyone at the table be on the same page, to help everyone feel included, to give the GM actual concrete rules to follow, to keep things running smoothly. I think that table dynamics and game design are tightly linked, just like the dynamics of player groups in multiplayer video games is directly linked to how those games are designed.

I think the opposite has happened.

The explosion of popularity is due in some part to how much 5e embraces and encourages a healthy and supportive social atmosphere. It's one aspect that held back previous editions from breaking into the mainstream.

At the very beginning of the PHB it states that D&D is a cooperative storytelling game. That informs the design principles and subsequently the rules and mechanics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

First, I apologize for the tone of my previous post. I ended up deleting it.

1) If there are valid critiques, then why are you arguing in this thread? I think the context (opening post miscommunicating and thus labeling all critique as wrong) colors the discourse and makes your push for epistemic humility come across as claiming no critique can be valid.

2) You imported the "so therefore it's broken and anyone who does like it has bad taste and should be ashamed". That is not inherent to the class of threads the opening post was talking about. No part of that escalating hyperbole is inherent to the class of threads as a whole.

3) Since the value of a product is derived from the subjective value others place on it, then there is validity to expressing that evaluation. "I don't like it" is a statement of fact. "I don't like it due to reasons" is a useful statement of fact.

4) There is value in someone reviewing an experience you have not had (see recent thread) or in analyzing why they do/don't like something and thus finding a common thread that others might or might not correlate with (many, but not most, people dislike limited use abilities, I can better understand and articulate my dislike due to reading others express theirs).

5) People can listen to others. Since you know I dislike limited use abilities, you can cite that fact. You are not limited to only your direct experiences. That is why common likes/dislikes become louder while topics with diverse preferences become more colorful.

The casual use of statements such as "it's not broken if some can fix it is a fallacy" and other absolutely disparaging remarks towards anyone who has the temerity to state that they don't think <forum zeitgeist "flaw"> is a flaw makes it clear that no, these forums tend to treat their subjective opinions as objective facts.

I strongly disagree, fundamentally, with the idea that we're identifying objective flaws or are some special source of truth about the game, its design, and the quality of its design (as an objective factor). Because the next step from that is "if you like it, you're bad." I've seen it dozens of times across many forums. I mainly want people to stop pretending toward objectivity. Subjective is not bad, but being honest that your (generic, not specific) opinions are, like everyone else's, opinions and that you (generic, not specific) have no privileged seat from which to talk about the game as a whole, is much better. For everyone, and for the discussion as a whole. We're all judging based on our own internal biases. And accepting that not liking something is not equivalent to thinking something is (objectively) bad is the first step towards that.

In this particular case, I wasn't even really pushing back against the OP or those who opposed him--I was specifically responding to one poster who claimed (or so it seemed) the objective right to tell everyone else they're wrong and like bad things. If I could see the word "flawed" or "broken" excised from our forum vocabulary in favor of "I prefer !X" or "I don't like that", I'd be much happier. Because claiming flaws (ie elevating subjective preferences to objective fact) is a not-healthy mentality. And it's one that's rife all over all sorts of forums.

Mike Mearls in 2014 when commenting on the 5e playtest said that one thing they found out is that message boards are not at all representative of the player base. And this was back in 2014 when all the D&D players were from previous editions.

Exactly. I've played with a large spectrum of players. Ranging from some grognards to lots of people who are new. And you know what I've found? New people understand the game way better than "more experienced" players, in general. Not the mechanics, but the fact that the mechanics are secondary, at least as designed. That the rules are a toolkit, used to form a common language for a given table. And that whatever is printed just really isn't that important once a table has decided what their rules (the only rules that matter) are going to be. New players, in my experience, are much more open to actually role playing; they're much more open to getting immersed in a setting as well. And much less likely to have bad habits built up over a long time of playing various games with very different philosophies. Just like you can program Fortran in any language, you can play 3e (the primary culprit in my experience) in any edition. Usually with less-than-great results in either case.

Beyond that, my interactions with the forums (both these and other ones) have shown me that the world of players I live in (which is mostly random people met on the internet, these days) is very different than the worlds inhabited by forumites. So much so that I feel like I'm in some sort of Anti-Bizarro world, where the problems people are claiming are "obvious" and "glaring" and "gamebreaking"...just don't exist. And not because we've taken steps to avoid them--I play basically stock with very few houserules. And don't watch my adventuring days[1]. And probably am too lavish with magic items. And this has been true my entire career. There's a world of players out there who don't think or act like the people on this forum. And you know what? They're a lot more fun to play with than the few I've played with who do follow the forum zeitgeist.