Quote from: Shipyard Locked;941076They don't miss what they never had, but you tell them they can't have something in the core book they'd only ever briefly glanced over and suddenly that's the most interesting option of all. These removals must be handled carefully -

No. These removals must be handled with an iron fist.

Last I DMed a few months ago, it was 1e and I didn't let anyone play anything except fighter, magic-user, cleric or thief. Nobody got up and left the game table, and everyone had fun. Confidence is key while DMing; if you expect trouble and whinging and arguments, you get them, if you expect everyone to grumble good-naturedly and just roll with it, you get that.

5e is crap, but that is not the issue here.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;941222I'm baffled, truly baffled that you're managing to quote me repeatedly and still completely miss my point and insult me about things I'm not even talking about.

I'm done with this. I've repeatedly clarified my intent, but apparently I've been designated the 'bad guy' for some reason, so little constructive discussion can come of this.

See you all in a few months.

Because in your last few threads youve been making one crackheaded "great truth" after another and then wondering why you get called a crackhead.

Moreso because some of your statements are just short of cut and paste from the most brutally moronic statements people have made about D&D or any RPG. This thread in particular comes off as rampant trolling.

You are NEVER guaranteed anything in D&D, and most other regular RPGs, EVER just because you took this or that class, this or that skill.
Taking a Cleric in no what whatsoever means that there MUST be undead. Taking a Ranger in no way means there MUST be giants to slay. Just because my Magic User/Wizard memorized Knock in utterly no way means that there MUST be a locked door or chest present today to cast it on.

This is such an brain stunted assertion of entitlement.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;941260-snip-.

5e is crap, but that is not the issue here.

Having only ever played EPT and 1e what exactly is the problem with 5e?

Shemek.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;941272Having only ever played EPT and 1e what exactly is the problem with 5e?

Shemek.

Perception.  It's not his favourite edition.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;941015There are a lot of quiet assumptions made about D&D worlds in the 5e system that might not jump out at you until your are working on the details of a setting. The fact that they are hard-coded in the player-facing book and  aren't flagged somewhere in the DMG can be a little inconvenient at times.

For instance, you want most player choices to be valid when running 5e, you'd better have the following baked into your campaign world:
- A god or pantheon that covers all the cleric domains (life, light, nature, war, tempest, trickery, knowledge, and optionally death)
- Super fairies, Satan, and Cthulu knock-offs for the warlocks to get their pact abilities from
- A context for monks
- Dragon spellcasting and likely dragon bestiality for sorcerers to exist. Also, you really want the whole rainbow of dragon varieties so the sorcerer's range of damage types is complete.
- Undead for casters to create or clerics to repel
- A high frequency of large creatures for certain key ranger ability choices to target
- Elementals, fey, demons, and heavenly beings across a range of challenge ratings for certain spells to summon and some paladin abilities to matter.
- Frequent mind-affecting magic from enemies so that some saving throws, racial abilities, class abilities, and feats get to matter.
- Adamantine and mythril get references in a few scattered mechanics
- Magic weapons common enough so that many monsters types can be reasonably fought by non-casters

I'm very likely missing many more.

Does this bug anyone else?

Generally, I like to create my own setting so the implied settings that many systems come with are a mild annoyance so I've moved to generic rules (Hero System, for the most part) which have less baggage.

I see criticizing 5e is still not allowed.

Quote from: CRKrueger;941283I see criticizing 5e is still not allowed.

Gee then Im sure in trouble! I criticized it enough they actually changed stuff in the playtest for the better. :cool:

Quote from: Nexus;941281Generally, I like to create my own setting so the implied settings that many systems come with are a mild annoyance so I've moved to generic rules (Hero System, for the most part) which have less baggage.

I did that as well back in the late 80s with both Hero System and GURPS. However my view now that outside of just plain liking those games, it overkill.

What works for D&D is working with a ur-D&D and using that as a foundation to customize the system. By ur-D&D, I am the OD&D core books plus Greyhawk. Now to be clear you don't have to use those specific rules. You can make a ur-3.0 by taking all the 3.0 stuff that matches OD&D+Greyhawk stuff. If OD&D+Greyhawk has magic missile, you include 3.0's version of magic missile. Do this for whatever edition that is your favor.

This ur-D&D will be a minimalist D&D that you can use a foundation to build your own take. OD&D+Greyhawk is pretty generic in its take on fantasy and the few specifics stand out because there are so few of them. The only thing that is a lot of work is a radical alteration of the spell lists. But with nearly dozen "official" versions of D&D there are many pre-made options you can use for mix and matching.

My own particular recommendation for anybody trying to craft their own version of D&D is to start with the Swords & Wizardry SRD and build from there.

Quote from: estar;941306I did that as well back in the late 80s with both Hero System and GURPS. However my view now that outside of just plain liking those games, it overkill.

To each there own. There's so much variety so readily available there's something out there for everyone's taste.

Quote from: Omega;941264Because in your last few threads youve been making one crackheaded "great truth" after another and then wondering why you get called a crackhead.

Moreso because some of your statements are just short of cut and paste from the most brutally moronic statements people have made about D&D or any RPG. This thread in particular comes off as rampant trolling.

You are NEVER guaranteed anything in D&D, and most other regular RPGs, EVER just because you took this or that class, this or that skill.
Taking a Cleric in no what whatsoever means that there MUST be undead. Taking a Ranger in no way means there MUST be giants to slay. Just because my Magic User/Wizard memorized Knock in utterly no way means that there MUST be a locked door or chest present today to cast it on.

This is such an brain stunted assertion of entitlement.

Just because there's no guarantee there will be undead doesn't mean that's not what the basic cleric is partially geared for (that, and heals). As for the Ranger/Giant Slayer example, if you allow the path, there sure as hell ARE (or were) giants in the campaign somewhere, otherwise how did the PC become a Giant Slayer in the first place? Some of that stuff feeds back into the campaign. Now, while I agree that a GM doesn't have to tailor anything to suit a specific class. But I also think that if the class has a widget or path that relates to its central identity, me paying no attention to that whatsoever is just GM dickery. I suppose that's mitigated by making it clear up front which widgets are null and void in your milieu.

Quote from: estar;941306This ur-D&D will be a minimalist D&D that you can use a foundation to build your own take.

Which was the intention from Day One.

Quote from: Omega;941264...

This is such an brain stunted assertion of entitlement.

It is actually not.

There's a reason there are so many games, because the way they play can be different. I agree there are assumptions built into D&D. Classes are built with options. Players choose those classes because of those options. So, removing whole aspects of the game that make those options no longer valid, is generally misrepresenting the game you're running.

This is one of my pet peeves. I'm not the only person with this peeve. It's also fucking lazy. There are so many generic OR non-D&D fantasy systems you could choose to get closer to your jack-ass "fuck everything" because I'm baby Jesus fantasy setting than lying to your players and then fucking them in the player-whole by nerfing the shit out of their options.

At least take the time to customize classes with abilities that fit your setting.

It's not about player-entitlement it's about good game design. Otherwise you just picked the wrong game for your special-snowflake setting and potential players need not give a fuck.

Just my two cents...

Quote from: trechriron;941353There's a reason there are so many games, because the way they play can be different. I agree there are assumptions built into D&D. Classes are built with options. Players choose those classes because of those options. So, removing whole aspects of the game that make those options no longer valid, is generally misrepresenting the game you're running.

This is a matter of actual communication at the table. Obviously, if the *only* thing I tell my players is "I'm running D&D" and then I have no undead for the cleric to encounter, then that is misrepresenting. However, in actual play, I'll probably have a much lengthier pitch explaining what the setting is like, what the house rules are, and other details. I might explain that in this setting, undead are extremely rare. A player may want to take a cleric anyway - maybe for the challenge, or maybe for some other reason. In any case, I haven't misrepresented. There are still plenty of different options for characters and fun to be had playing.

In general, I'm not a believer in perfect game balance. If the whole campaign is set in a city, then I need tell that to the players - but I don't have to redesign the druid to be equally good in an urban environment. If someone wants to take a druid in a city game, that is a challenge but it could also be a ton of fun.

Quote from: trechriron;941353It's not about player-entitlement it's about good game design. Otherwise you just picked the wrong game for your special-snowflake setting and potential players need not give a fuck.

You're saying that any setting that isn't the default is a "special snowflake" - which sounds derogatory. Maybe it's not your cup of tea, but I have had a ton of fun playing in unique settings. I don't think there's anything wrong with them.

Quote from: jhkim;941366You're saying that any setting that isn't the default is a "special snowflake" - which sounds derogatory. Maybe it's not your cup of tea, but I have had a ton of fun playing in unique settings. I don't think there's anything wrong with them.

I thought he was saying that you shouldn't design a highly specific setting, then expect players to use a default rules system with useless options in it to play in that setting.

Quote from: cranebump;941374I thought he was saying that you shouldn't design a highly specific setting, then expect players to use a default rules system with useless options in it to play in that setting.

Precisely. Make it as unique and flavorful as you want/need. If your setting has no undead but a bunch of Abberations, why not just make the cleric's ability "turn Abberations"? Why not choose Mythrus for custom cults, guilds, etc. and tailor a more generic ruleset to fit your setting? Or how about you design your setting, and use some OSR elbow grease and create a selection of classes (weapons, magic, items, treasure) that fits your setting?

You don't need to constrained by D&D's assumptions, but ignoring how the game was built and ignoring class abilities so you can shoehorn D&D into your setting just seems crap to me. It's not very player-centric (which we may not care about in this instance...).

The basis of the counter point here is flawed. If the setting is more important to you find or tweak a ruleset to match - NOT vice versa (IMHO).