Tabletop RPGs Have a Design Debt to Pay

There are two kinds of design flaws in tabletop RPGs. First, there are the “flaws” — really, tradeoffs — that we can disagree over. These are mechanics that serve a purpose but impose costs elsewhere that may not be worth it or enjoyed by all players. Often these flaws relate to tone, flavor, play style, or competing design goals. For example, player characters in Dungeons & Dragons have hit points roughly proportional to their level. As a result, encounters with weaker enemies become trivial at higher levels, and encounters with once-unbeatable enemies become manageable. Players who enjoy seeing their characters grow rapidly in power and outgrow old challenges may like this dynamic. And players who want ordinary human-level challenges to stay dangerous may prefer slower hit-point growth or none at all. We can reasonably disagree. Then there are true, unambiguous flaws. These are mechanics that serve no purpose even as they impose complication and confusion, and detract in other ways. Perhaps because there’s less to passionately disagree over, these abject problems receive less airtime. Today, let’s focus on them. First, I’ll give an extended example of one such flaw in D&D. Then I’ll draw out some general lessons about how bad design lingers and spreads and what we, as players and designers, can do about it. <a href="https://medium.com/theuglymonster/tabletop-rpgs-have-a-design-debt-to-pay-11805bd1a709">Click Here</a>