There are people who generally play the game as written.
Then there are people who play the game as they wish to, and a new edition or rules errata can't change the way they play.
WOTC is making much more money off of the first group, than they are off of the second group. WOTC is pitching their wares to the first group, and is trying to attract new players to the first group. WOTC doesn't care about the second group. We are lost to them.
Perhaps we should just move on, without them......
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 14, 2022, 08:14:15 PM
There are people who generally play the game as written.
Then there are people who play the game as they wish to, and a new edition or rules errata can't change the way they play.
WOTC is making much more money off of the first group, than they are off of the second group. WOTC is pitching their wares to the first group, and is trying to attract new players to the first group. WOTC doesn't care about the second group. We are lost to them.
Perhaps we should just move on, without them......
Yes, most certainly, we should, and we have... somewhat.
IMO the new shiny thing is appealing, at least for a bit, at least due to the novelty, but if the new product could be better, that effect wears off fast.
We go back to the good stuff, but even so, we constantly look for some new flavor. Hence why so many retro-clones are out there.
It is clear that WOTC does not care about us and that whatever we do next is not thought to be for us.
Where to go from here?
1. stop giving any more money to WOTC = instead, support creators that do make what we want
2. keep playing the games we already have
3. move to new-ish versions of our favorite flavor
3. try new directions in which we may find new cool stuff
I moved on already, at least 18 months ago. I think in reality it was quite a bit earlier than that, though there was a transition period.
I'm "interested" in what they do only in the same way that I'm "interested" in a train wreck. Given that I'm not much of a gawker, that's not all that interested.
We probably spend too much time talking about this particular ruleset and copyright owner, that we don't want to support anymore. They have received a lot of online attention here, from people who don't want to support them. I have contributed to that, myself.
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 15, 2022, 01:26:23 AM
We probably spend too much time talking about this particular ruleset and copyright owner, that we don't want to support anymore. They have received a lot of online attention here, from people who don't want to support them. I have contributed to that, myself.
This reminds me of an interview I saw with a black actor (maybe Morgan Freeman). He was asked about racism (perhaps how to solve it or how to deal with it, I don't remember), and the actor's reply was to stop talking about it (and address people as people without adding race into the conversation).
You have the right idea. After step 1 (stop giving our money to WOTC) step 2 should be "stop talking about D&D and WOTC".
Many more games and companies have great stuff to talk about. So let's promote more conversations about those.
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 14, 2022, 08:14:15 PM
There are people who generally play the game as written.
Then there are people who play the game as they wish to, and a new edition or rules errata can't change the way they play.
WOTC is making much more money off of the first group, than they are off of the second group. WOTC is pitching their wares to the first group, and is trying to attract new players to the first group. WOTC doesn't care about the second group. We are lost to them.
Perhaps we should just move on, without them......
Someone who plays OSR products like Dungeon Crawl Classics, OSRIC, or Old School Essentials is going to have way more in common with players of GURPS, Savage World, and West End D6 than they will with players of current 5e.
I do think we need to advocate for a separation of the hobbies. 5E players want a GM directed story they are the stars of. Where as any other RPG player just wants a cool setting, fun dungeons, and scenarios to beat. It's the difference between people who want improv theatre and an actual game with risk, loss, and rewards. RPG players can have the games and gamers who want to play RPGs. And the theatre kids can have 5E and Critical Role and those lets plays by the porn starts that Zak Sabbath ran before he got me too'd.
When 4E came out and WotC sent it's Organized Play advertising minions out, I concluded that my money was better spent elsewhere. DnD 5E just confirmed my decision was the correct one.
I've got OSE, Basic Fantasy, and Labyrinth Lord if I want the D&D gameplay experience.
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 14, 2022, 08:14:15 PM
There are people who generally play the game as written.
Then there are people who play the game as they wish to, and a new edition or rules errata can't change the way they play.
The delusion of most of the hobby is that the rules matter in how you choose to use the rules.
Use a system because you like it. You don't need to justify that choice it is a preference.
Use a system because it saves you a ton of work for how your run your campaigns and the setting you use. Sure I could use OD&D mechanics for everything but I know how much work it would take and often I am not interested in doing that much in my hobby time. So I may turn to Traveller or Hero System for certain settings and campaigns.
Outside of that the only person to blame for how your campaigns are run is the person you look at in a mirror.
Blaming chapters of advice, published adventures, encounter building rules, etc. is a copout. None of the later editions of D&D break just because you decide not to listen to the book's author's opinions on what ought to happen in a campaign.
Following this philosophy allows me to run my Majestic Wilderlands as the setting for my fantasy campaigns for 40 years across AD&D 1e, Fantasy Hero, GURPS, Fantasy AGE, Harnmaster, D&D 5e, Swords & Wizardry, Fate/Fudge, and my own Swords & Wizardry variant the Majestic Fantasy RPG.
Of course if you do this you can't expect your players to magically read your mind about how the setting supposed to work using whatever rules that are chosen for the campaign. You need to be prepared to teach or coach the players on what they need to know.
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 14, 2022, 08:14:15 PM
we should just move on, without them......
Yes. This is the sane approach, IMO. (And it's liberating.)
Yeah, I checked out 5e in 2016, hated it, flipped the books online and haven't bought a WoTC product since and never will again. This includes pdf reprints, though I bought one product on ebay from a vendor, but it was used so I think I'm okay. Don't care what they do or what happens to whatever travesty they slap the D&D name on. I've got plenty of retroclones, as well as all my originals, to bounce between.
Succinctly, "Haha, no."
I haven't paid WotC a dime since 4E dropped. From what I can see, I don't have any real plans to... Except to maybe buy one of those transforming D20 dragons I saw a couple weeks ago on some toy blog.
I've got Rules Cyclopedia, 1E, 2E, 3E, Pathfinder, a whole host of retroclones and nu-OSR-alikes. And that's just for for playing "Dungeons and Dragons", to say nothing of a vast array of other RPGs.
WotC needs me more than I need them, and they don't apparently need me at all.
They don't because I don't play DND. I do play games based off of DND and make games based on games based on games based on games based on a video game adaptation of DND based on old school DND. They help as a measuring stick for the games i make myself, especially my newest project- a mashup of two games I made earlier. One is essentially a tabletop JRPG with unconventional gameplay, the other is Burning Wheel meets Quixalted meets YuGiOh meets Gundam meets Riddle of Steel. Basically just the stuff I like.
Now, since my TTRPG loving friends are OSR fans, i usually try to fit my game within their expectations of crunch and gameplay. My game has a social combat system and an indepth combat system based off of Saga Frontier 2 plus my older game, so I'm trying to make the game roughly equal to 5e DND (most popular rpg, they played it), or at most Pathfinder 2e (4e but better) complexity. That shouldn't be too hard for an OSR player to grok (they're unconventional. very anime inspired) due to the fact hitting in my game consists of three steps. My game also has multiple races, multiple abilities (martial and magical), giant robots, and a lot more.
tl;dr: I use DND as a measuring stick for crunch and character build diversity, so that's how modern DND influences how I play my TTRPGs. Other than that, no, it doesn't influence how I play the game.
I haven't read a "D&D" ruleset since 3.5, and even that wasn't really for me.
I dropped the official line for OSR products over a decade ago.
I DO wish there was more original HackMaster stuff, though.
I've yet to play D&D.
There are lots of RPGs to choose from. If D&D is getting too irritating, then branch out
Savage Worlds seems to be the darling game that isn't D&D or Pathfinder (which is still D&D).
Yes, but for one simple reason: a lot of people, especially new people to the hobby, read "D&D" as "the version I can buy at the store today."
So, if I'm not playing that version as my base I need to be upfront about that and realize if I'm needing or wanting to build a new group that I'm immediately passing on a lot of people.
If I don't need or want a new group, but am just running for my existing group, we either have preferences we just do or we discuss what new to try.
Beyond that, not really.
I guess that's less about playing than setting up to play, so no, it doesn't matter at the table once I have a group.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 14, 2022, 11:22:48 PM
I moved on already, at least 18 months ago. I think in reality it was quite a bit earlier than that, though there was a transition period.
I'm "interested" in what they do only in the same way that I'm "interested" in a train wreck. Given that I'm not much of a gawker, that's not all that interested.
This. The last WotC product I bought was Tashia's. I only bought it because I am in a semi-regular 5e game and was using some material in it.
Beyond that, there are only a couple of name companies that routinely get my dollar. The better material is coming from small shops doing it as a side or retirement business.
Quote from: PulpHerb on December 16, 2022, 11:07:29 AM
Yes, but for one simple reason: a lot of people, especially new people to the hobby, read "D&D" as "the version I can buy at the store today."
So, if I'm not playing that version as my base I need to be upfront about that and realize if I'm needing or wanting to build a new group that I'm immediately passing on a lot of people.
If I don't need or want a new group, but am just running for my existing group, we either have preferences we just do or we discuss what new to try.
Beyond that, not really.
I guess that's less about playing than setting up to play, so no, it doesn't matter at the table once I have a group.
True; I live in a fairly small town with one game store. The people I know locally who play RPGs pretty much all play 5e. I've pretty much played exclusively with family members the past couple years due to this. But even then, we don't play much. Since our game store does sell DCC and OSE I might put up an ad early next year and see if I can get a group together to try one of those out, though I've never seen people in the store playing either game. On the other hand, I know of a game store that was up in Cleveland, Ohio where DCC was their "official" game and they ran games weekly. So it depends on where you are.
Quote from: Persimmon on December 16, 2022, 11:20:40 AM
Since our game store does sell DCC and OSE I might put up an ad early next year and see if I can get a group together to try one of those out, though I've never seen people in the store playing either game.
Sell them on the setting and mention that you are happening to use OSE (or DCC) to run the campaign with that setting. Speaking as a guy who lives in rural Northwest Pennslyvania for five decades.
If folks press you on not using 5e, just say that campaign flows better with your system than it does with 5e. I.E. they will get more done in the time spent gaming.
Quote from: estar on December 16, 2022, 01:29:46 PM
Quote from: Persimmon on December 16, 2022, 11:20:40 AM
Since our game store does sell DCC and OSE I might put up an ad early next year and see if I can get a group together to try one of those out, though I've never seen people in the store playing either game.
Sell them on the setting and mention that you are happening to use OSE (or DCC) to run the campaign with that setting. Speaking as a guy who lives in rural Northwest Pennslyvania for five decades.
If folks press you on not using 5e, just say that campaign flows better with your system than it does with 5e. I.E. they will get more done in the time spent gaming.
And that indeed is a major attraction of OSR games for me. You can get at least two to three times more gaming in without the bloat of 3e+ D&D. A few years back my old gaming group would alternate systems/editions and things slowed way down with the 3e/Pathfinder stuff. One guy's son, who was a teenager, would spend to whole session reading the rulebooks trying to find where he could apply his situational modifiers or use his feats. He was a non-entity when we played AD&D because he couldn't think creatively off the character sheet.
Quote from: estar on December 16, 2022, 01:29:46 PM
Sell them on the setting and mention that you are happening to use OSE (or DCC) to run the campaign with that setting. Speaking as a guy who lives in rural Northwest Pennslyvania for five decades.
If folks press you on not using 5e, just say that campaign flows better with your system than it does with 5e. I.E. they will get more done in the time spent gaming.
I'm fine with selling what I want to run. I was just acknowledging that playing current D&D (for any era, except maybe the mid-90s when WoD was equally easy) was the easiest path to find people as long as I've been in the hobby, at least in the US (and I suspect Canada). That's an advantage that D&D will probably always have as long as there is official D&D. I suspect it will be true even if, as I wonder, official D&D becomes like Middle Earth and Star Trek, a licensed RPG that moves from company to company every 5-10 years.
And all these years reading BitA, I could have sworn you were in Austin for some reason.
Quote from: Persimmon on December 16, 2022, 01:51:54 PM
And that indeed is a major attraction of OSR games for me. You can get at least two to three times more gaming in without the bloat of 3e+ D&D. A few years back my old gaming group would alternate systems/editions and things slowed way down with the 3e/Pathfinder stuff. One guy's son, who was a teenager, would spend to whole session reading the rulebooks trying to find where he could apply his situational modifiers or use his feats. He was a non-entity when we played AD&D because he couldn't think creatively off the character sheet.
OSE and many other OSR games do have an advantage there to sell them. If you can get someone their own character (not a pregen) in 10 minutes and expand the rules in another 10 it's a lot easier to get them to "well, I'll try it this one time" than something that takes an hour to make characters.
People talk about D&D only surviving as the 800 lb gorilla because it was first. I think, at least until mid-3rd (when 20 level planned and optimized builds became the norm) and even then dying off with 5e, the ability to get someone at the table competent to play a level one character in under 30 minutes is a huge advantage, especially in bringing new people to the hobby.
Yep, if a character sheet is more than two sides and it takes more than 30 minutes to generate a PC, I generally won't bother with a game anymore. Last month I picked up Mutant Crawl Classics and you can generate a 0 level character in under 5 minutes. 1st level will take longer but not much.
With OSE I can do it in under 10 minutes pretty easily.
Quote from: Persimmon on December 16, 2022, 02:08:50 PM
Yep, if a character sheet is more than two sides and it takes more than 30 minutes to generate a PC, I generally won't bother with a game anymore. Last month I picked up Mutant Crawl Classics and you can generate a 0 level character in under 5 minutes. 1st level will take longer but not much.
With OSE I can do it in under 10 minutes pretty easily.
I won't say never on something more complex. I'm always up for 80s Rolemaster and would play DragonQuest again. I'd like to try Powers & Perils one day.
And I'm a GURPS fan, although I'm down with templates for it and Hero.
But, the ones I am up for it I've played, sometimes extensively, with the exception of P&P. If a new game looks like it'll take > 30 minutes first time, but be quicker, that's okay. Plus, if character generation is a mini-game (like most versions of Traveller) that makes time used less annoying.
Quote from: PulpHerb on December 16, 2022, 02:35:34 PM
I won't say never on something more complex. I'm always up for 80s Rolemaster and would play DragonQuest again. I'd like to try Powers & Perils one day.
And I'm a GURPS fan, although I'm down with templates for it and Hero.
But, the ones I am up for it I've played, sometimes extensively, with the exception of P&P. If a new game looks like it'll take > 30 minutes first time, but be quicker, that's okay. Plus, if character generation is a mini-game (like most versions of Traveller) that makes time used less annoying.
Time spent on the character has to reward the effort somehow. It can be fun in its own right because of the way it's put together. It can give you interesting ideas about where you want to take the character. It can be in a game where your character is more likely to live long enough for it to matter. Or it can be short and get you going quick. Not everyone will enjoy every path.
My thing is that I don't demand that the game produce characters quickly, but I do demand that things that aren't quick have a payoff within the scope of what that game does. Which in practical terms means that a lot of games would be better if this aspect was shorter, because so much of the effort in putting together a character has so little payoff. I don't particularly want to play a game that takes, for example, 10 minutes to put together a character when all the parts that were worth doing should only take 5 minutes.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 16, 2022, 03:13:37 PM
Time spent on the character has to reward the effort somehow. It can be fun in its own right because of the way it's put together. It can give you interesting ideas about where you want to take the character. It can be in a game where your character is more likely to live long enough for it to matter. Or it can be short and get you going quick. Not everyone will enjoy every path.
My thing is that I don't demand that the game produce characters quickly, but I do demand that things that aren't quick have a payoff within the scope of what that game does. Which in practical terms means that a lot of games would be better if this aspect was shorter, because so much of the effort in putting together a character has so little payoff. I don't particularly want to play a game that takes, for example, 10 minutes to put together a character when all the parts that were worth doing should only take 5 minutes.
I can see all that (not much different from my take) with one exception.
Never introduce someone who has not played an RPG before with something with long character creation without evidence that can derive some enjoyment from it. That has less to do with "long creation is always boring" but husbanding their enthusiasm for their entire first time instead of blowing it all calculating three round of character development, for example (RM's time thief).
Quote from: PulpHerb on December 16, 2022, 03:26:36 PM
I can see all that (not much different from my take) with one exception.
Never introduce someone who has not played an RPG before with something with long character creation without evidence that can derive some enjoyment from it. That has less to do with "long creation is always boring" but husbanding their enthusiasm for their entire first time instead of blowing it all calculating three round of character development, for example (RM's time thief).
Absolutely. If you are going to play a game with long character creation because it's what you are doing, and it runs smoothly enough to introduce someone to RPGs, then make their first character for them.
I've even had a few casual players that never made characters but played for years. They loved playing, just weren't into the character creation part. They'd give me an idea of the kind of character they wanted to try, and then off we'd go with whatever I provided.
Quote from: PulpHerb on December 16, 2022, 11:14:04 AM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 14, 2022, 11:22:48 PM
I moved on already, at least 18 months ago. I think in reality it was quite a bit earlier than that, though there was a transition period.
I'm "interested" in what they do only in the same way that I'm "interested" in a train wreck. Given that I'm not much of a gawker, that's not all that interested.
This. The last WotC product I bought was Tashia's. I only bought it because I am in a semi-regular 5e game and was using some material in it.
Beyond that, there are only a couple of name companies that routinely get my dollar. The better material is coming from small shops doing it as a side or retirement business.
Tasha's was the book that showed me, I didn't want any more of their rules expansions; because I only liked a little of what was in that book, and it was 100% proof that each expansion contained less and less of interest to me.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 16, 2022, 04:18:35 PM
Quote from: PulpHerb on December 16, 2022, 03:26:36 PM
I can see all that (not much different from my take) with one exception.
Never introduce someone who has not played an RPG before with something with long character creation without evidence that can derive some enjoyment from it. That has less to do with "long creation is always boring" but husbanding their enthusiasm for their entire first time instead of blowing it all calculating three round of character development, for example (RM's time thief).
Absolutely. If you are going to play a game with long character creation because it's what you are doing, and it runs smoothly enough to introduce someone to RPGs, then make their first character for them.
I've even had a few casual players that never made characters but played for years. They loved playing, just weren't into the character creation part. They'd give me an idea of the kind of character they wanted to try, and then off we'd go with whatever I provided.
I could honestly look through a handful of pregen characters, and find something to roll with; but other people might insist upon their own unique character concept. I love to flip through the Pathfinder NPC Codex for 1st Edition. All the Core Rulebook classes are represented, with unique pregens at every level; from 1st to 20th level. If only every RPG offered such a book.....
No, current rules or editions do not matter to how I play. I'm in my fourth decade of playing, it would take a lot for something to matter at this point.
Along those lines, I think 5e is fairly easy and straightforward. I haven't DM'd 5e for a while now, but it was never difficult to create an easy and streamlined game. I was able to incorporate it into my style without issue.
That said, I because I don't particularly enjoy DM for 5e, I will be running my upcoming Dragonlance game using a different ruleset despite using the recent release as a foundation.
I would rather play Palladium Fantasy 1st Edition over 2nd, so it does matter.
But, the takeaway is to find a game system you like. That's why I mentioned Savage Worlds, a game I mildly like, but probably won't play myself. It sure is popular with a lot of other people.
D&D has too much of a hold on RPG gaming. It's not even that good as a set of rules. Given that, the OSR games are better than any of the official games. I'm impressed by Basic Fantasy and Shadow of the Demon Lord, or Star Adventurer if you like Star Wars. Those three games I'll play.
My favorite game isn't even that close in design anymore, called Dungeons and Delvers Dice Pool edition.
https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-dice-pool/ (https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-dice-pool/)
I think D&D is fine if you like it, but I don't. I didn't start with it and when I finally did see it played, it turned me off and actually made me happy I had a "better" game. I'm not that closed minded these days, but I have no loyalty to that game system.
Quote from: weirdguy564 on December 17, 2022, 08:32:34 PM
I would rather play Palladium Fantasy 1st Edition over 2nd, so it does matter.
But, the takeaway is to find a game system you like. That's why I mentioned Savage Worlds, a game I mildly like, and probably won't play myself. It sure is popular with a lot of other people.
D&D has too much of a hold on RPG gaming. It's not even that a good set of rules. Given that, the OSR games are better than any of the official games. I'm impressed by Basic Fantasy and Shadow of the Demon Lord, or Star Adventurer if you like Star Wars. Those three games I'll play.
My favorite game isn't even that close in design anymore, called Dungeons and Delvers Dice Pool edition.
https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-dice-pool/ (https://biggeekemporium.com/product/dungeons-delvers-dice-pool/)
I think D&D is fine if you like it, but I don't. I didn't start with it and when I finally did see it played, it turned me off and actually made me happy I had a "better" game. I'm not that closed minded these days, but I have no loyalty to that game system.
It undoubtedly helps, that official D&D wasn't your introduction to the hobby. It helps you stay open-minded toward other games. Once I fully embraced the idea that neither TSR nor WOTC could leave the rules alone, I felt completely free to just do whatever I wanted to do with it.
Publishers have never had much influence on home-groups played among friends. Where things like edition changes matter is in public settings like conventions, game-stores, VTT games, and to a lesser extent pick-up groups and local game clubs. When people play with strangers they're much more likely to fall back on "official rules" as a neutral arbiter. Not to mention all of the "official" playing settings like Adventurer's League, where WOTC gets to explicitly dictate what rules people play by.
Personally the only one of those that I engage with is VTT gaming, and I do find it pays in that setting not to homebrew too much. There's a sort of unwritten etiquette on Roll20 that you can have a bit of clearly stated homebrew, but people want to know going in which books they're playing from, and be able to stick to that. I don't run or play official D&D, and probably never will though, so WOTC's decision making is still mostly irrelevant to me.
The current edition of D&D most impacts people who aren't playing it through the expectations it creates in new players, but that I think is less the case as time goes on. The average person joining an old-school game these days is probably coming from a Youtube/forum recommendation, and they're likely to be making that change precisely because they want the different play style.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 18, 2022, 10:08:01 AM
Publishers have never had much influence on home-groups played among friends. Where things like edition changes matter is in public settings like conventions, game-stores, VTT games, and to a lesser extent pick-up groups and local game clubs. When people play with strangers they're much more likely to fall back on "official rules" as a neutral arbiter. Not to mention all of the "official" playing settings like Adventurer's League, where WOTC gets to explicitly dictate what rules people play by.
Personally the only one of those that I engage with is VTT gaming, and I do find it pays in that setting not to homebrew too much. There's a sort of unwritten etiquette on Roll20 that you can have a bit of clearly stated homebrew, but people want to know going in which books they're playing from, and be able to stick to that. I don't run or play official D&D, and probably never will though, so WOTC's decision making is still mostly irrelevant to me.
The current edition of D&D most impacts people who aren't playing it through the expectations it creates in new players, but that I think is less the case as time goes on. The average person joining an old-school game these days is probably coming from a Youtube/forum recommendation, and they're likely to be making that change precisely because they want the different play style.
Yeah, if you're not homebrewing rules, you must be new to RPG gaming.
We did it all the time in Palladium system. We had to. That system has become a bit wobbly over the years as new, official rules get added that conflict with existing ways to play the game.
Some house rules are just to make it easier to play. For example, guns in Heroes Unlimited do more damage (less accurately) if you shoot more of a magazine at an enemy. There are short bursts of 33% of your magazine, x3 damaging long bursts that use up 50% ammo. But the lack of being a math savant meant I can't mix and match a 33% and a 50% used vs remaining ammo in my head. So, short bursts were changed to be 25% ammo usage. Now I can mentally do the math, aka you can have four short bursts, two long bursts, or a single mag dump, plus two or three single shots that just are given as freebies.
I'm responding to OP's question, and I think the answer is that the current ruleset of D&D influences how everyone plays. Even the unpopular 4ed influenced things as some people who stuck with the brand became more tactical and others moved to Pathfinder, and if you had friends that played games, they probably had experience with one or the other. With 5ed getting so very many people into the hobby, the only way it won't influence you is if you have a table that is constant for years and years and nothing else. If you ever get someone to your table, they will have a harder time adjusting the more different you are than the current version of D&D (which they are familiar with). If you go and join other tables, the most popular game will influence which tables run what, and even influence the number of tables that are running whatever you do want to run.
Very few groups are islands, and this is a group game. So if D&D goes and makes a shitty game that can't stop farting out politics and has design precepts you don't like, that is going to influence you eventually- even if the only influence is to make you work harder to keep your personal stuff running and coherent amid a world gone mad.
Unless I know the GM and know they are up to it, I basically stopped playing D&D years ago. It's just not worth it.
I rarely GM--I don't really view myself as a talented GM--but when I do GM I run a Campaign Overview sheet to keep up with all the shenanigans because it's rare that I run only one or two homebrew rules. Things included on the Campaign Overview include:
- A loose guidance for the campaign's movie rating and the content which earns that rating.
- Lines, Veils, Banned Content, Ask For Before Including Content, and whatever other safety tools I'm using. (Safety tools are unpopular here because of how disruptive the X-Card can be and they are strongly associated with SJW snowflakes, and X-Cards are frequently a problem. I prefer to think of this as being a good managing editor and giving everyone in the campaign a shared vision for what content should and should not be in the campaign.)
- A list of homebrew rules I am currently using.
- Rules for introducing a rules change or a change to the campaign's direction.
- What happened in the last session. Often I write a synopsis of each session on an index card so players actually have a history of the campaign they can use to jog their memories.
The rules in the book are always a suggestion. RPGs are open source software by design, and open source means that you are within your prerogative to customize the rules at your own risk.
Do the current rules or edition, even matter to how you play D&D?
Not for me, I couldn't care less. The worst thing is when you you confront the players with a monster and they recite all the values of the Monster Manual at you. After a couple of frustrating encounters I stopped using official stats. Monsters were no longer a set of values. Ghosts for instance were as likely to be story events, NPC's, or terrible opponents as anything else.
I had the the players guided by a mysteriously ghostly figure through a dangerous wilderness. They sort of guessed there was a point to this and eventually trusted the spirit, only to find a set of bodily remains. It was quite touching to see their response, taking the time to inter the dead individual with respect even though they had only the slightest clue who he had been.
Oh how they moaned when I junked alignment because I was fed up of 'evil' characters doing as they pleased because they felt liberated by a single stat - yet the background of morality made the adventures work. Players sensed a purpose, a story, and accepted their role as heroes.
We human beings have a long cultural tradition and my advice to refs/GM's is never be afraid of exploiting it. It might be old hat to frame adventures in a stereotypical pseudo-historical way, but players genuinely do relate to such ideas, and even a fantasy world must have a structure to seem real.
But rule-books? They don't tell me how to run a game :D
Quote from: Venka on December 19, 2022, 04:28:14 PM
Very few groups are islands, and this is a group game. So if D&D goes and makes a shitty game that can't stop farting out politics and has design precepts you don't like, that is going to influence you eventually- even if the only influence is to make you work harder to keep your personal stuff running and coherent amid a world gone mad.
I agree with almost everything you said, but I want to push back on this point just a little bit. I only have anecdotal evidence for this, but I get the impression that there's more groups out there than usually get talked about where it's people just playing with their regular IRL friends, often people they've been playing with for years or decades, and they don't have much if any contact with the hobby as a wider community.
On top of that, the proliferation of pdfs and online distribution has made it easier than ever to get out of D&D while staying in the hobby. While D&D sells more copies these days than 20 years ago, I would guess that it actually has a smaller percentage of the RPG marketshare. It's still a lot of people's starter RPG, but if those people move on to other games (which a lot of the most devoted ones seem to do), then when they introduce their friends, siblings, children etc., it isn't necessarily going to be through D&D.
Basically what I'm saying is that while D&D probably isn't losing its crown as the most-played RPG any time soon, I'm not convinced that in ten or 15 years it's still going to be "the game that everyone started with".
Hell even today, when you talk about all the people that started with D&D, that's counting a lot of people who started with previous editions. Again this is anecdotal, but the RPG scene seems to have a lot of people who started somewhere between OD&D and 3.5, played 5e a few times, didn't like it, and moved on into games that fit their attitudes better. The OSR muddles that even further, as a lot of people adhere to Professor DM's idea that any game with 3d6 for attributes, AC and class/level counts as "D&D". Going forward some percentage of the people who "started with D&D" are actually going to be people who started with something like Dungeon Crawl Classics or Castles & Crusades.
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 20, 2022, 11:27:43 AM
Quote from: Venka on December 19, 2022, 04:28:14 PM
Very few groups are islands, and this is a group game. So if D&D goes and makes a shitty game that can't stop farting out politics and has design precepts you don't like, that is going to influence you eventually- even if the only influence is to make you work harder to keep your personal stuff running and coherent amid a world gone mad.
I agree with almost everything you said, but I want to push back on this point just a little bit. I only have anecdotal evidence for this, but I get the impression that there's more groups out there than usually get talked about where it's people just playing with their regular IRL friends, often people they've been playing with for years or decades, and they don't have much if any contact with the hobby as a wider community.
On top of that, the proliferation of pdfs and online distribution has made it easier than ever to get out of D&D while staying in the hobby. While D&D sells more copies these days than 20 years ago, I would guess that it actually has a smaller percentage of the RPG marketshare. It's still a lot of people's starter RPG, but if those people move on to other games (which a lot of the most devoted ones seem to do), then when they introduce their friends, siblings, children etc., it isn't necessarily going to be through D&D.
Basically what I'm saying is that while D&D probably isn't losing its crown as the most-played RPG any time soon, I'm not convinced that in ten or 15 years it's still going to be "the game that everyone started with".
Hell even today, when you talk about all the people that started with D&D, that's counting a lot of people who started with previous editions. Again this is anecdotal, but the RPG scene seems to have a lot of people who started somewhere between OD&D and 3.5, played 5e a few times, didn't like it, and moved on into games that fit their attitudes better. The OSR muddles that even further, as a lot of people adhere to Professor DM's idea that any game with 3d6 for attributes, AC and class/level counts as "D&D". Going forward some percentage of the people who "started with D&D" are actually going to be people who started with something like Dungeon Crawl Classics or Castles & Crusades.
Yes. I have used later versions of D&D, but I've never been dependent on them. My groups (note the plural), want to play whatever I'm going to run. Since that isn't WotC stuff anymore, then we don't play that. Also note that some of the people in those groups have other groups that have nothing to do with me, including some WotC D&D groups. That's fine.
From the very beginning, I never had an issue with people importing assumptions from other games, including D&D. For one, I'm explicit where the changes are, in tone, rules, play procedures, etc. This is also true in house ruled versions. I've run 3E, 4E, and 5E, but seldom with the default initiative rules, for example, where I run more like B/X.
Yep, it's a circle of family and friends, but it grows over time, instead of shrinking. Despite having to build new groups almost from scratch after various moves. (There's a core group from the college days that has been playing since '87, but even that changes membership over time.) Part of it is that I recruit. Part of it is that I run what I'm going to run, and
some gamers enjoy that. And part of it that I don't try to be all things to all gamers. Most gamers don't want to do what I do, which is also fine. That attitude means that the people who do stick with my games for several sessions tend to stick for years.
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 14, 2022, 08:14:15 PM
There are people who generally play the game as written.
Then there are people who play the game as they wish to, and a new edition or rules errata can't change the way they play.
WOTC is making much more money off of the first group, than they are off of the second group. WOTC is pitching their wares to the first group, and is trying to attract new players to the first group. WOTC doesn't care about the second group. We are lost to them.
Perhaps we should just move on, without them......
I moved on more than 20 years ago when 3E came out.
When I saw there was a 22 page conversion book, I was immediately turned off.
then I found Hackmaster 4E. I was hooked. It was everything AD&D was and more. Arguably, Hackmaster kicked off the OSR back in 2001.
After that, it just grew: OSRIC, Castles & Crusades, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, etc.
And now we have OSE. Good times.
D&D isn't D&D anymore. It's not. The current version is not what Gygax and Arneson wanted it to be. It's a giant, bloated, animated corpse of a game.
In short: fuck 'em. I don't NEED them.
Quote from: Venka on December 19, 2022, 04:28:14 PM
I'm responding to OP's question, and I think the answer is that the current ruleset of D&D influences how everyone plays. Even the unpopular 4ed influenced things as some people who stuck with the brand became more tactical and others moved to Pathfinder, and if you had friends that played games, they probably had experience with one or the other. With 5ed getting so very many people into the hobby, the only way it won't influence you is if you have a table that is constant for years and years and nothing else. If you ever get someone to your table, they will have a harder time adjusting the more different you are than the current version of D&D (which they are familiar with). If you go and join other tables, the most popular game will influence which tables run what, and even influence the number of tables that are running whatever you do want to run.
Very few groups are islands, and this is a group game. So if D&D goes and makes a shitty game that can't stop farting out politics and has design precepts you don't like, that is going to influence you eventually- even if the only influence is to make you work harder to keep your personal stuff running and coherent amid a world gone mad.
Every group is an island. And on that island, the GM is king. Some islands are much better than others. Some islands are deserts. Some islands have Mr. Rourke and his dwarf sidekick granting you your darkest and most awesome fantasies.
OneD&D Island is the Matrix. Some people want the blue pill.
I'm appreciative of this thread, cause I've been thinking similar things that lots of peeps have posted.
Without rancor or animosity, I'm done giving WotC money for a current edition. I do still, on occasion, buy something from DTRPG that I don't want to pay collector prices for.
I have loads of material already, and like others have said, there's loads of great content creators out there that do want my money that produces non-woke stuff.
So I'm good.
QuoteThere are people who generally play the game as written.
Then there are people who play the game as they wish to, and a new edition or rules errata can't change the way they play.
WOTC is making much more money off of the first group, than they are off of the second group. WOTC is pitching their wares to the first group, and is trying to attract new players to the first group. WOTC doesn't care about the second group. We are lost to them.
Perhaps we should just move on, without them......
I deeply doubt that average 5e player play game as written. If anything houseruling seems to be very popular, and 5e fans can be blunt enough to try to push any genre into it.
WOTC is basically advertising game based on still somehow robust combat engine - as unlimited tool for collaborative storytelling. That leads to ignoring plenty of rules in name of STORY.
I mean they will still consoom next project - but def not use it faithfully
Quote from: tenbones on December 20, 2022, 02:04:28 PM
...
OneD&D Island is the Matrix. Some people want the blue pill.
^Truth^
Rhetorical Gold - snagged for future use.
Quote from: caldrail on December 20, 2022, 09:04:50 AM
The worst thing is when you you confront the players with a monster and they recite all the values of the Monster Manual at you. After a couple of frustrating encounters I stopped using official stats. Monsters were no longer a set of values.
I once described a troll as having four arms and 6 eyes and the players freaked and ran because for the fist time they weren't sure what the stats were. Then years later I read Raggi's bit about monsters being unique and it really sank in.
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 30, 2022, 09:00:42 PM
Quote from: caldrail on December 20, 2022, 09:04:50 AM
The worst thing is when you you confront the players with a monster and they recite all the values of the Monster Manual at you. After a couple of frustrating encounters I stopped using official stats. Monsters were no longer a set of values.
I once described a troll as having four arms and 6 eyes and the players freaked and ran because for the fist time they weren't sure what the stats were. Then years later I read Raggi's bit about monsters being unique and it really sank in.
Sounds similar to an NPC wizard quest giver who has a goblin as a sidekick. The little guy grumbled and mumbled a lot, but was loyal to his wizard friend to his core. The only thing he liked more was his little wife and three gobby daughters. And good cooked ham with potatoes.
This was in Palladium Fantasy. Goblins are a playable race, along with Trolls, Ogres, and Orcs. Mostly evil, but there is still a bell curve.
Not everything needs to be a trope.
I did use real world analogies an awful lot. High Elves were based on medieval Japan with 'moon swords' rather like the Star Trek Klingon weapons, but reclusive, their Craftholds withdrawn from the world and only accessible via magical portals, whereas Wood Elves more like the native Americans of the colonial times.
Giants were like huge grizzly bears, living in wild family groups but drawn to human civilisation for the easy pickings despite the risks of retaliation (heck, they weigh as much as an elephant or more - as "heavy as five bulls" was the phrase I used, and looked like a pale skin coloured and somewhat hairy Incredible Hulk rather than the typical lanky and tall versions of children's stories).
Rules do matter if you play the game! I played one session of 4e after buying up a bunch of materials. As I read the rules I kept thinking...looks novel...but man, it's BLAND. Where are the cool spells? Is there no teleport? Heck yeah the rules you use matter.
I bought up BECMI. It was surely fun and quick, but we wanted more options.
I like the core 5e books...I am ok on some supplements. But I am done with WOTC. I do not like their politics and I sure won't submit to their "ONE." I don't need to. I have a stack of books.
My 1e books are worn for a reason. If you get into the game there is always more to explore. 5e is a different experience. Like a car with heated seats the extra features start to feel like needs. But I have the car—-I am not going back to the shitty dealership just because I bought one there before! It's running fine and I don't have a need to get gouged!
Since it's roughly on-topic, I'll tell an anecdote here.
Yesterday, I had lunch with an old friend of mine. Not the person that introduced me to D&D, but definitely the guy I gamed with most when we were kids. He started with AD&D in the 2e era, and we played a lot of 3.0/3.5. Like me, he bought the 5e core books when they came out, on the grounds that people were saying it was better than the previous edition, but unlike me, he kept playing it. I'm not sure why. I've tried to get him onto other games, but either he's too cheap or lazy to chance a different system, or (more likely) he just doesn't really care about rules. Anyway, turns out that he's running Adventurer's League games at our local store, but he's also heavily homebrewing the modules and ignoring half the rules, so maybe WOTC's diktats don't matter much even in that setting.
Also, I offered him my remaining 5e books on the grounds that I never intend to play the game again, and he mentioned that an acquaintance of his was collecting books for a gaming group they're trying to get together at a local school. I took the opportunity to suggest that instead of trying to scrounge up used 5e books, they could more easily just get new Basic Fantasy RPG books for a couple of dollars each. Don't know if he'll follow through on it, but I might have inadvertently struck a blow against WOTC in the battle for the next generation of role-players.
There seems to be a strong feeling among my player group that we'll actively avoid "ONE D&D"; WOTC have done pretty much everything possible to alienate us. I expect to keep playing 5e D&D, but with increasing amounts of other systems. One guy is looking at running some Runequest.
I *suspect* a lot of people (here) and elsewhere - will try OneD&D and will get hooked if they otherwise have never played a well designed Mobile game. And they will adopt this new paradigm once the meathooks set in.
The bifurcation will occur with people that expressly want to play a TTRPG with less dependency on VTT elements over traditional play. The reality is the gamble (and it is a gamble) that VTT is already pretty well established. I personally don't think WotC understands their proposition is already a bit of a strain on TTRPG GM's that don't want to wrestle with Fantasy Grounds, or Roll20 and all the rabbit holes you can go down with a primarily VTT set up. WotC in order to lock in their financial goals *will* end up competing more with video-games than they believe.
GM's that largely eschew VTT will likely be a minority by comparison. BUT I'm betting this won't matter in terms of smaller publishers. Because effectively WotC is creating a new kind of game that is largely separate form TTRPG's. Just like if there is a hot new card game, or a hot new boardgame - it's not a threat to TTRPG companies that already exist.