Do you run wild and free with the rules, or do you feel obligated to pay homage to the rich history of the game?
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 29, 2023, 12:58:46 PM
Do you run wild and free with the rules, or do you feel obligated to pay homage to the rich history of the game?
If a rule is stupid, which I find a good bit in 5e and I think it needs to be changed, I will change it.
I do not like in 5e how magic just automatically always hits. I hate how the player can roll a perception roll and know everything about the room, where as in my OSE game I am running, players have to think about what they are checking and do it narratively.
Truthfully, the more I run 5e the more I hate it. With OSE I am dipping my toe into the OSE and as soon as I can I am going to drop 5e and run something else.
In my games I change whatever doesn't work for me and my group. I will generally fill out a document with any changes to RAW for a given game and get it to players prior to session 0. That way everyone is on the same page during character creation and any questions or concerns can be talked out before session 1.
If we are talking D&D then it has gone through so many changes that it isn't even the same game from edition to edition. For a home game, any edition can be run with whatever changed or additional rules the participants desire.
I change the rules a lot, usually in relation to a specific issue I've had at the table. The only limitation is that you should get player buy-in.
The rules are a tool to make it easy for the GM to run the game and the players to play it. The players decide what the character is going to do. The GM adjudicates. When the rules help with that, they can. The moment they don't, they are ignored.
These days, I allow myself up to four pages of house rules, 10-12 point font, with headers for different sections. I find that if I don't impose that sort of restriction on myself, I'll tinker forever, wasting time better spent on planning sessions or deforming the game until it is barely recognizable as what I pitched to players.
No rule or mechanic or collection of rules is sacred. The value of any rule or rule set is to facilitate good play at the table. Either the rule works for the table or it gets ganked.
That said, I like a rule set being preserved for both historical purposes and for me to plumb for things that may work for my players.
We tried to stick fairly close to the rules back in the day, though like most folks I suspect, we were really playing a B/X & AD&D hybrid of sorts.
In the past few years we've cycled through a bunch of the retroclones and mostly landed on Castles & Crusades because I realized I had the fewest house rules for it and tweaks to its Siege Engine are super easy to integrate without messing the game up. And you can pull stuff from nearly every edition of D&D and adapt it to C&C with almost no thought.
I was briefly in some guy's online game a few years ago and he literally had around 90 pages of house rules. At that point, just go the Gillespie route and make your own game...
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 29, 2023, 12:58:46 PM
Do you run wild and free with the rules, or do you feel obligated to pay homage to the rich history of the game?
I tend to play only in pre-built settings that I find interesting. Greyhawk, Realms, Dragonlance, etc. and I tended back in those days to run them as they were written. These days? I discard *anything* I think is superfluous and uninteresting, and replace it with something I think is more fitting.
I very much respect the rich history of a setting, if it's good enough for me to use it, it's always going to get my respect. That said, when you've been playing in those playgrounds long-enough, treading the same ground can get stale. For instance my last Realms campaign started on the Sword Coast, but the big conceit of the setting was me introducing the Gods of Chaos (from Moorcock/Warhammer) into the Realms as an excuse for me to completely go fucking crazy and scare the shit out of my players. Wars in the Underdark as the Skaven ritual gets enacted by a Clan of stupid Duergar, build slowly then boils over into the surface realms. Gods killing Gods... and the PC's are fighting wars against the great upheavals... and I'm totally holding strong to the conceits of the Realms and their gods, letting the PC's lead things, in direct opposition as they see fit.
So I like the twist it up, with respect.
Now, I'm working on a totally homebrewed setting.
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 29, 2023, 01:09:48 PM
I do not like in 5e how magic just automatically always hits.
Did you miss the part where there are spell attack rolls and saving throws?
Quote from: Corolinth on August 29, 2023, 03:33:26 PM
Did you miss the part where there are spell attack rolls and saving throws?
some have them but there are spells that are just automatic. No save to avoid damage just straight up hits. Very few spells have rolls or saves for them.
Only the BroSR idiots think the game should be ran RAW. Gygax himself didn't play by the rules HE CREATED ;D
RAW can be fun but eventually groups find the holes in the system and patch 'em with house-rules.
I feel fine changing whatever I want, but for the sake of expediency, try to limit myself to two pages for mechanical rules like combat, encumbrance, and xp. Maybe another two pages of character background tables and equipment lists if I'm using some unique setting. Those limits are just to make life easier for players.
I have all the liberty I need to house rule. But I should have a good reason for it.
And if I find myself needing to house rule a lot, my question becomes am I running the right game?
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 29, 2023, 01:09:48 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 29, 2023, 12:58:46 PM
Do you run wild and free with the rules, or do you feel obligated to pay homage to the rich history of the game?
If a rule is stupid, which I find a good bit in 5e and I think it needs to be changed, I will change it.
I do not like in 5e how magic just automatically always hits. I hate how the player can roll a perception roll and know everything about the room, where as in my OSE game I am running, players have to think about what they are checking and do it narratively.
Truthfully, the more I run 5e the more I hate it. With OSE I am dipping my toe into the OSE and as soon as I can I am going to drop 5e and run something else.
The funny thing is, I experience the opposite. I like 5e's minimal reliance on number crunching. The mechanics can be a little oversimplified at times, but overall, it's easier to run than most other systems I've played.
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 29, 2023, 12:58:46 PM
Do you run wild and free with the rules, or do you feel obligated to pay homage to the rich history of the game?
When my group plays Pathfinder, we houserule things like spell materials. Basically, you don't need materials to cast something unless the material is specific to the spell's target (like some divination spells) or is beyond a certain monetary value. We also houserule that Spell Focus is a +1 to all spell DCs, not just one school of magic.
Other times, it's a matter of patching exploits. Casting Mount as a weapon is hilarious, but we had to houserule certain limitations on it. Dropping a horse on an enemy is only funny the first few times.
Quote from: FingerRod on August 29, 2023, 08:10:28 PM
I have all the liberty I need to house rule. But I should have a good reason for it.
And if I find myself needing to house rule a lot, my question becomes am I running the right game?
This.
If I'm interested enough in a game to learn and consider running it, I think I probably owe the creator a test-drive. I play many games RAW, but if something doesn't work for me I'll consider a change (with player consent).
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 29, 2023, 08:19:10 PM
The funny thing is, I experience the opposite. I like 5e's minimal reliance on number crunching. The mechanics can be a little oversimplified at times, but overall, it's easier to run than most other systems I've played.
The thing about it is the it was created so the characters always win. It's almost impossible for characters to die (in OSE its easy), combat can be really slow (is OSE it's very quick) and the characters are overpowered from the start.
That's not how D&D used to play and it doesn't feel like the D&D I used to play.
I owe no loyalty to the system or the author. If I don't like a rule, I change it. I've never play a TTRPG 100% RAW in my life, specially not D&D. First thing I did was drop spell memorization, and I rarely cared about race restrictions for classes, specially later on. Over the years, I changed so much it barely looked like D&D, specially in the 2e days.
I always took the rules as suggestions on how to arbitrate the game. Most are just fine, but I'll use a different rule if I think it's better.
The OSR had me re-thinking why I was changing rules. Chesterton's Fence and all that. So I'm a bit more cautious about changing a rule.
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 30, 2023, 09:52:02 AM
I owe no loyalty to the system or the author. If I don't like a rule, I change it. I've never play a TTRPG 100% RAW in my life, specially not D&D. First thing I did was drop spell memorization, and I rarely cared about race restrictions for classes, specially later on. Over the years, I changed so much it barely looked like D&D, specially in the 2e days.
Just curious, when you ditched level limits for demi-humans, did anyone ever play a human in your games? Mechanically unlimited advancement is the only reason to choose human.
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 29, 2023, 12:58:46 PM
Do you run wild and free with the rules, or do you feel obligated to pay homage to the rich history of the game?
I house rule what needs ruling for the world I am using any RPG engine in. Doesn't matter who made it.
N.B. I don't run any version made by WotC as they are craptastic and not D&D really
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 30, 2023, 12:51:10 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 30, 2023, 09:52:02 AM
I owe no loyalty to the system or the author. If I don't like a rule, I change it. I've never play a TTRPG 100% RAW in my life, specially not D&D. First thing I did was drop spell memorization, and I rarely cared about race restrictions for classes, specially later on. Over the years, I changed so much it barely looked like D&D, specially in the 2e days.
Just curious, when you ditched level limits for demi-humans, did anyone ever play a human in your games? Mechanically unlimited advancement is the only reason to choose human.
Not the person you asked, but I can legit count on one finger the number of D&D campaigns I've run where level limits even mattered (to be fair I dumped AD&D early so I didn't have many D&D campaigns period). That one petered out around level 13 and so only barely mattered.
Most of the D&D campaigns I've seen die before level 6, nearly all the rest peter out by level 10 regardless of edition unless the GM is literally handing out levels every other session which, with one exception, are the ONLY campaigns I've seen reach level 20 (the other was a perfect storm that produced a seven year-long 4E campaign... the only thing comparable was my decades long Mage campaign that saw several waves of PCs reach multi-sphere mastery before being retired).
I can also say that 90+% of players I've met pick races purely on appearance and maybe fluff text and don't give two shits about the mechanics. So yes, dumping level limits would make zero difference to them.
Quote from: Chris24601 on August 30, 2023, 03:22:00 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 30, 2023, 12:51:10 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 30, 2023, 09:52:02 AM
I owe no loyalty to the system or the author. If I don't like a rule, I change it. I've never play a TTRPG 100% RAW in my life, specially not D&D. First thing I did was drop spell memorization, and I rarely cared about race restrictions for classes, specially later on. Over the years, I changed so much it barely looked like D&D, specially in the 2e days.
Just curious, when you ditched level limits for demi-humans, did anyone ever play a human in your games? Mechanically unlimited advancement is the only reason to choose human.
Not the person you asked, but I can legit count on one finger the number of D&D campaigns I've run where level limits even mattered (to be fair I dumped AD&D early so I didn't have many D&D campaigns period). That one petered out around level 13 and so only barely mattered.
Most of the D&D campaigns I've seen die before level 6, nearly all the rest peter out by level 10 regardless of edition unless the GM is literally handing out levels every other session which, with one exception, are the ONLY campaigns I've seen reach level 20 (the other was a perfect storm that produced a seven year-long 4E campaign... the only thing comparable was my decades long Mage campaign that saw several waves of PCs reach multi-sphere mastery before being retired).
I can also say that 90+% of players I've met pick races purely on appearance and maybe fluff text and don't give two shits about the mechanics. So yes, dumping level limits would make zero difference to them.
Pretty much. Most campaigns I've played never made it pass level 10 or so. And the most notable one that eventually did was made up primarily of elf PCs. So racial level limits were rarely a concern regardless.
Most players I've met also tend to pick races based largely on appearance or what they feel like playing that day. Mechanical concerns are largely secondary, although I do think that they're a valid concern, just not one that your average normie player gives a crap about. And I'm not sure how racial level limits or class restrictions adequately addresses anything.
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 29, 2023, 12:58:46 PM
Do you run wild and free with the rules, or do you feel obligated to pay homage to the rich history of the game?
The rich history of D&D is people house ruling it to hell and back, so... I don't understand the question?
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 30, 2023, 12:51:10 PM
Just curious, when you ditched level limits for demi-humans, did anyone ever play a human in your games? Mechanically unlimited advancement is the only reason to choose human.
It was a stupid balancing mechanic that didn't work, and was fundamentally flawed in conception.
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 30, 2023, 09:37:39 AM
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 29, 2023, 08:19:10 PM
The funny thing is, I experience the opposite. I like 5e's minimal reliance on number crunching. The mechanics can be a little oversimplified at times, but overall, it's easier to run than most other systems I've played.
The thing about it is the it was created so the characters always win. It's almost impossible for characters to die (in OSE its easy), combat can be really slow (is OSE it's very quick) and the characters are overpowered from the start.
That's not how D&D used to play and it doesn't feel like the D&D I used to play.
Fair enough. Full disclosure: I've never played OSE. My experience with D&D is strictly 2E, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, and 5E. As a DM, I don't feel like the characters are overpowered in 5E overall, but whenever I do feel like they are too powerful, I just either boost the stats on an enemy, or I increase the number of enemies.
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 30, 2023, 06:28:14 PM
Fair enough. Full disclosure: I've never played OSE. My experience with D&D is strictly 2E, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, and 5E. As a DM, I don't feel like the characters are overpowered in 5E overall, but whenever I do feel like they are too powerful, I just either boost the stats on an enemy, or I increase the number of enemies.
I know that talking to people and watching videos this is a complaint that I hear often. OSE is a cleaned up version of the D&D Basic/Expert rules. I run a bi-weekly game (running it tonight) and its a lot of fun.
I always try to play by the rules first, because I feel that you need to understand the system before making your changes. A rule that you don't like on paper may assume a different meaning once you try it interlocked with the others.
Sometimes I immediately see something that I don't like. Permanent level loss in earlier editions of D&D, for example (IMHO it should be the result of something truly awful, not from a random undead randomly swinging at you). My first house-rule, in B/X, was that you rolled for your HP when you increase your level, but if the end result was below the average for your class then you got the average (for example, a level 4th Fighter, d8 in B/X, was guaranteed to have at least 18 HP).
In D&D 3/3.5E I house-ruled a lot the combat rules because, as much as I like the overall system, it is clear that 3.5E WANTS for the players to use miniatures - and I sketch situations on graph paper. However, it was not as difficult as it seems.
Generally speaking - but this is more of a Rule 0 - I never stop an exciting moment to look for a rule. I wing things on the spot then I check. Sometimes it turns out that the way I did it was better.
Lastly, and this is the most curious thing, when I'm the DM rules are a tool to be used or thrown away. Somehow, when I'm the player I'm very strict about the rules. It is a total contradiction but I literally know the rules more in-depth when I'm the player than I bother to learn when I'm a GM - and I'm not a rule-lawyer (the word of the GM is always the holiest, but if I can help them by knowing a rule thus avoiding a frantic search in the manuals then I do it).
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 30, 2023, 03:44:01 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on August 30, 2023, 03:22:00 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 30, 2023, 12:51:10 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on August 30, 2023, 09:52:02 AM
I owe no loyalty to the system or the author. If I don't like a rule, I change it. I've never play a TTRPG 100% RAW in my life, specially not D&D. First thing I did was drop spell memorization, and I rarely cared about race restrictions for classes, specially later on. Over the years, I changed so much it barely looked like D&D, specially in the 2e days.
Just curious, when you ditched level limits for demi-humans, did anyone ever play a human in your games? Mechanically unlimited advancement is the only reason to choose human.
Not the person you asked, but I can legit count on one finger the number of D&D campaigns I've run where level limits even mattered (to be fair I dumped AD&D early so I didn't have many D&D campaigns period). That one petered out around level 13 and so only barely mattered.
Most of the D&D campaigns I've seen die before level 6, nearly all the rest peter out by level 10 regardless of edition unless the GM is literally handing out levels every other session which, with one exception, are the ONLY campaigns I've seen reach level 20 (the other was a perfect storm that produced a seven year-long 4E campaign... the only thing comparable was my decades long Mage campaign that saw several waves of PCs reach multi-sphere mastery before being retired).
I can also say that 90+% of players I've met pick races purely on appearance and maybe fluff text and don't give two shits about the mechanics. So yes, dumping level limits would make zero difference to them.
Pretty much. Most campaigns I've played never made it pass level 10 or so. And the most notable one that eventually did was made up primarily of elf PCs. So racial level limits were rarely a concern regardless.
Most players I've met also tend to pick races based largely on appearance or what they feel like playing that day. Mechanical concerns are largely secondary, although I do think that they're a valid concern, just not one that your average normie player gives a crap about. And I'm not sure how racial level limits or class restrictions adequately addresses anything.
I am more in the camp of giving human characters some cool perks of their own rather than limiting non humans these days. That way all options have something different to offer and there are no artificial restrictions.
I only believe the designer or adventure writer is better at their job than I am if they actually demonstrate that fact. These days, the fact it's in a book doesn't mean you're good at your job. It means you know someone at a convention, spoke the right DEI incantations, and spent a lot of money *marketing* a kickstarter. RPGs these days tend to not even be playtested that thoroughly.
So no, I almost never play games RAW.
Heck, I keep a rules changelog. I have a campaign sheet which typically includes things like a spoiler-free synopsis of the campaign, what happened last session, lines and veils guidelines...and I keep a list of homebrew rules, when they were implemented, and often why they were changed.
Quote from: Reckall on August 31, 2023, 02:10:25 AM
I always try to play by the rules first, because I feel that you need to understand the system before making your changes. A rule that you don't like on paper may assume a different meaning once you try it interlocked with the others.
Yes, early on in my gaming days I made that mistake more than once. But, I eventually learned it.
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 30, 2023, 09:37:39 AM
That's not how D&D used to play and it doesn't feel like the D&D I used to play.
That is only one reason it is D&D in name only. Bloated, over protective of overpowered PCs.
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 10:27:23 AM
That is only one reason it is D&D in name only. Bloated, over protective of overpowered PCs.
Amen to that. I have more fun running OSE than I ever have play or running 5e.
An example: Last session of my 5e game (last Friday) the 4 players that could make it went up against a CR5 Gorgon. The gorgon did a bunch of damage with 3 attacks and even managed to turn one of the players to stone.
Even though a couple of characters went down several times but in the end they were able to beat the gorgon (with problems) but with a cleric they were able to be revived and continue the attack. Not to mention even though they lost many hit points they will sleep for 8 hours and get all their hit points back.
In OSE, they sleep for 8 hours and get 1d3 hit points back which is more realistic.
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 11:06:12 AM
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 10:27:23 AM
That is only one reason it is D&D in name only. Bloated, over protective of overpowered PCs.
Amen to that. I have more fun running OSE than I ever have play or running 5e.
An example: Last session of my 5e game (last Friday) the 4 players that could make it went up against a CR5 Gorgon. The gorgon did a bunch of damage with 3 attacks and even managed to turn one of the players to stone.
Even though a couple of characters went down several times but in the end they were able to beat the gorgon (with problems) but with a cleric they were able to be revived and continue the attack. Not to mention even though they lost many hit points they will sleep for 8 hours and get all their hit points back.
In OSE, they sleep for 8 hours and get 1d3 hit points back which is more realistic.
In AD&D it is 1 hp/day I believe. Yes, this is why I named 5th The "Snowflake Edition"
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 11:17:37 AM
In AD&D it is 1 hp/day I believe. Yes, this is why I named 5th The "Snowflake Edition"
While I prefer 1d3 per day 1 hp makes sense.
You are right, 5e is "The Snowflake Edition"
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 29, 2023, 12:58:46 PM
Do you run wild and free with the rules, or do you feel obligated to pay homage to the rich history of the game?
Is this the Pinkertons?? :o
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 11:06:12 AM
[
In OSE, they sleep for 8 hours and get 1d3 hit points back which is more realistic.
Hit points have nothing to do with realism. Slow natural recovery simply makes the game more challenging. Those who want to play a challenging game play classic D&D. Those who want to play heroes and tell a story play WOTC D&D.
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 11:17:37 AM
In AD&D it is 1 hp/day I believe. Yes, this is why I named 5th The "Snowflake Edition"
While I prefer 1d3 per day 1 hp makes sense.
You are right, 5e is "The Snowflake Edition"
At 1 per day I allowed Con bonus to be added.
Naturally I houserule. Who doesn't?! However, most of my houserules focus on "quality of life" adjustments, such as abstracting encumbrance or simplifying bloated mechanics. Rarely do I delve into fundamental mechanical changes, and only after I've had significant enough hands-on time to know why a change is needed (or desired).
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 11:06:12 AM
[
In OSE, they sleep for 8 hours and get 1d3 hit points back which is more realistic.
Hit points have nothing to do with realism. Slow natural recovery simply makes the game more challenging. Those who want to play a challenging game play classic D&D. Those who want to play heroes and tell a story play WOTC D&D.
Is it really about "challenge" or time management? A party can spend two weeks to fully recover, but can they afford to? A severly-wounded PC should be played accordingly (e.g. avoiding combat and not placing themselves in danger) or they WILL die. Perhaps that's what you meant by "challenge," but I'd just call that roleplaying. And I'd argue, that would be roleplaying the "realism" of the situation.
Modern DnD simply focuses on a different aspect of roleplaying. By making characters more resilient to dying, players can become more invested in them, developing backstories, relationships, and whatnot. There was another thread on here recently where people had said backstories weren't important in early DnD because death was so common. Why develop a character that can be taken out by a well-placed arrow?
So you can call it "snowflake edition" or whatever, but crux is that the games are simply focusing on different playstyles. If you want grittier 5e, you can always houserule it.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
Those who want to play heroes and tell a story play WOTC D&D.
You can't become a hero under snowflake conditions.
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 01:31:30 PM
So you can call it "snowflake edition" or whatever, but crux is that the games are simply focusing on different playstyles. If you want grittier 5e, you can always houserule it.
Right children's play style with 5th or mature play-style with TSR editions.
Quote from: Theory of Games on August 29, 2023, 04:57:42 PM
Only the BroSR idiots think the game should be ran RAW. Gygax himself didn't play by the rules HE CREATED ;D
RAW can be fun but eventually groups find the holes in the system and patch 'em with house-rules.
Gygax's home game, was not AD&D.
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 01:31:50 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
Those who want to play heroes and tell a story play WOTC D&D.
You can't become a hero under snowflake conditions.
When everyone is a hero, no one can actually be a hero.
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 01:33:09 PM
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 01:31:30 PM
So you can call it "snowflake edition" or whatever, but crux is that the games are simply focusing on different playstyles. If you want grittier 5e, you can always houserule it.
Right children's play style with 5th or mature play-style with TSR editions.
This is probably a true statement, but not for the HP-recovery mechanics. I think trying to shelter the readers from "problematic" issues is what has turned 5e into a kid's game. It's been carefully currated to remove uncomfortable topics, much like a Saturday morning cartoon would. Could you add these things in? Sure! Unless you're someone who only runs pre-gen adventures; then you're stuck with whatever milquetoast story they give you.
But if the HP-recovery mechanics are the only thing keeping you from enjoying 5e, just houserule it. What's the problem?
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
Hit points have nothing to do with realism. Slow natural recovery simply makes the game more challenging. Those who want to play a challenging game play classic D&D.
That's the way D&D was and it makes sense. Losing 40 hit points and then sleeping for 8 hours and bam your ok is just stupid. No one sleeps for 8 hours and is fine, which is way hospitals exist.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
Those who want to play heroes and tell a story play WOTC D&D.
That's a silly comment. You can play a hero and and tell a story with the earlier editions The difference is that the older editions don't make characters superheroes at first level. 5e is made so everyone wins and characters are almost difficult to die (because so many people have a fit about characters dying.
In games like OSE characters arent going to go into every room and not fight everyone because there is a real chance of dying. searching isnt one skill and bam I know everything about the room. Players have to role playing searching.
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 01:12:34 PM
At 1 per day I allowed Con bonus to be added.
Yeah that totally makes sense.
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 31, 2023, 01:47:59 PM
When everyone is a hero, no one can actually be a hero.
Exactly. Quoted for truth.
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 01:31:30 PM
Modern DnD simply focuses on a different aspect of roleplaying. By making characters more resilient to dying, players can become more invested in them, developing backstories, relationships, and whatnot. There was another thread on here recently where people had said backstories weren't important in early DnD because death was so common.
It's not about making characters more resilient, its about making characters superheroes so they can't die because some many gamers these days are snowflakes who cannot stand characters dying. If people like that playstyle, fine. But if I am going to play a character who is a superhero off the bat, I can play a video game and not have to deal with books, dice or people.
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 01:31:30 PMWhy develop a character that can be taken out by a well-placed arrow?
Because that makes the character a hero. Knowing not to get in every fight and having to think and plan (where characters in 5e where they know 99% of the time they are going to win.
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 01:31:30 PM
So you can call it "snowflake edition" or whatever, but crux is that the games are simply focusing on different playstyles. If you want grittier 5e, you can always houserule it.
Houserulling doesn't fix the many broken things about the rules. It's just better to go play something else that works better.
Quote from: Jam The MF on August 31, 2023, 01:47:59 PM
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 01:31:50 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
Those who want to play heroes and tell a story play WOTC D&D.
You can't become a hero under snowflake conditions.
When everyone is a hero, no one can actually be a hero.
8)
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 02:12:28 PM
It's not about making characters more resilient, its about making characters superheroes so they can't die because some many gamers these days are snowflakes who cannot stand characters dying.
5e WAS designed for snowflake gamers. Period
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 02:12:28 PM
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 01:31:30 PM
Modern DnD simply focuses on a different aspect of roleplaying. By making characters more resilient to dying, players can become more invested in them, developing backstories, relationships, and whatnot. There was another thread on here recently where people had said backstories weren't important in early DnD because death was so common.
It's not about making characters more resilient, its about making characters superheroes so they can't die because some many gamers these days are snowflakes who cannot stand characters dying. If people like that playstyle, fine. But if I am going to play a character who is a superhero off the bat, I can play a video game and not have to deal with books, dice or people.
So you're incapable of finding ways to challenge players that doesn't require shoving a sword through their gut. Got it.
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 02:12:28 PM
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 01:31:30 PMWhy develop a character that can be taken out by a well-placed arrow?
Because that makes the character a hero. Knowing not to get in every fight and having to think and plan (where characters in 5e where they know 99% of the time they are going to win.
Spending time giving a character a detailed backstory at CharGen only to die at 1st level is heroic?? Not sure you understood the context behind that (retorical) question.
But anyway, are you saying heroism is the only metric by which characters are defined in early DnD, and that being relatively weak is what makes them heroic? Sorry, but I fail to see the actual relation here. Achilles was nigh-invulerable. Would you say he wasn't a hero because he was so hard to kill? If someone plays an evil bastard thief who steals every chance he gets, even from poor folk, is he a hero because he has low HP?
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 02:12:28 PM
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 01:31:30 PM
So you can call it "snowflake edition" or whatever, but crux is that the games are simply focusing on different playstyles. If you want grittier 5e, you can always houserule it.
Houserulling doesn't fix the many broken things about the rules. It's just better to go play something else that works better.
Yeah, it's almost like if you want a particular experience, you find the system that caters to it. I do find it curious how you say fixing the broken rules won't fix the broken rules. Almost like this is actually nothing more than another "fuck 5e" rant.
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 02:58:59 PM
So you're incapable of finding ways to challenge players that doesn't require shoving a sword through their gut. Got it.
Hmm, straw man argument by a snowflake. Who wudda thunk it?
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 03:21:31 PM
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 02:58:59 PM
So you're incapable of finding ways to challenge players that doesn't require shoving a sword through their gut. Got it.
Hmm, straw man argument by a snowflake. Who wudda thunk it?
No. Just deductive reasoning skills beyond your ability to understand.
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 02:49:28 PM
5e WAS designed for snowflake gamers. Period
You don't have to sell me, you are preaching to the choir. It's people like Effete who doesn't understand that.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 11:06:12 AM
[
In OSE, they sleep for 8 hours and get 1d3 hit points back which is more realistic.
Hit points have nothing to do with realism. Slow natural recovery simply makes the game more challenging. Those who want to play a challenging game play classic D&D. Those who want to play heroes and tell a story play WOTC D&D.
For me, the most story-oriented system is the old World of Darkness series by White Wolf. It can be pretty challenging for players as well. Their D10 system with health levels instead of HP can mean instadeath more often than your typical D&D game, at least for 2E and beyond.
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 02:58:59 PM
So you're incapable of finding ways to challenge players that doesn't require shoving a sword through their gut. Got it.
No, I can. However if it becomes too difficult players start to complain and leave. But then again, maybe that would be a good thing.
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 02:58:59 PMSpending time giving a character a detailed backstory at CharGen only to die at 1st level is heroic?? Not sure you understood the context behind that (retorical) question.
No, creating a detailed backstory at level 1 is stupid. You wait until you are level 2 or 3 before you do that.
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 02:58:59 PM
Houserulling doesn't fix the many broken things about the rules. It's just better to go play something else that works better.
It's not worth trying to fix all of the things that are broken about 5e. It's easier to find a better system that works better and play that instead.
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 02:58:59 PM
Yeah, it's almost like if you want a particular experience, you find the system that caters to it. I do find it curious how you say fixing the broken rules won't fix the broken rules. Almost like this is actually nothing more than another "fuck 5e" rant.
No, I found a system that gives me the D&D feeling and the characters aren't superheroes at level 1 which makes 5e D&D in name only. Look around, watch some videos. My complaints about the system are being talked about by many people.
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 04:01:52 PM
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 02:49:28 PM
5e WAS designed for snowflake gamers. Period
You don't have to sell me, you are preaching to the choir. It's people like Effete who doesn't understand that.
Well, you're logically inconsistent arguments haven't done much to convince me.
Tell me... are video games that use limited lives inherently better than those that use checkpoints? Think about how you answer this, then reread what I wrote.
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 01:54:27 PM
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 01:33:09 PM
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 01:31:30 PM
So you can call it "snowflake edition" or whatever, but crux is that the games are simply focusing on different playstyles. If you want grittier 5e, you can always houserule it.
Right children's play style with 5th or mature play-style with TSR editions.
This is probably a true statement, but not for the HP-recovery mechanics. I think trying to shelter the readers from "problematic" issues is what has turned 5e into a kid's game. It's been carefully currated to remove uncomfortable topics, much like a Saturday morning cartoon would. Could you add these things in? Sure! Unless you're someone who only runs pre-gen adventures; then you're stuck with whatever milquetoast story they give you.
But if the HP-recovery mechanics are the only thing keeping you from enjoying 5e, just houserule it. What's the problem?
Agreed. Woke content and restrictions infantilize a game, not HP mechanics.
But if we're talking realism and a challenge, Health Levels from the World of Darkness games are closer to reality and tend to emphasize the fragility of characters more than HP (which rises with experience levels). WOD doesn't have experience levels, so you instead get points to build your characters with over time. This results in more customization, but since Health Levels mostly stay the same over time, you always have to play carefully or risk death even if you have a lot of powers.
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 04:18:42 PM
Well, you're logically inconsistent arguments haven't done much to convince me.
There is nothing inconsistent about my arguments. They are the same every time. Perhaps you have a comprehension problem.
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 02:01:07 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
Hit points have nothing to do with realism. Slow natural recovery simply makes the game more challenging. Those who want to play a challenging game play classic D&D.
That's the way D&D was and it makes sense. Losing 40 hit points and then sleeping for 8 hours and bam your ok is just stupid. No one sleeps for 8 hours and is fine, which is way hospitals exist.
Max HP going up with experience levels doesn't make much sense either, yet it's a staple of D&D. I understand what you're getting at, but it's just that logic seems to be selectively applied here by preferences in game mechanics.
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:13:33 PM
Their D10 system with health levels instead of HP can mean instadeath more often than your typical D&D game, at least for 2E and beyond.
You never played with a GM like Gary then. Or, others that ran the game as intended.
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 04:37:26 PM
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:13:33 PM
Their D10 system with health levels instead of HP can mean instadeath more often than your typical D&D game, at least for 2E and beyond.
You never played with a GM like Gary then. Or, others that ran the game as intended.
I've never played 1E or its variations. My introduction was with 2E, which was fun, but I prefer 3/3.5E, which is why I also enjoy Pathfinder 1E.
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:39:58 PM
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 04:37:26 PM
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:13:33 PM
Their D10 system with health levels instead of HP can mean instadeath more often than your typical D&D game, at least for 2E and beyond.
You never played with a GM like Gary then. Or, others that ran the game as intended.
I've never played 1E or its variations. My introduction was with 2E, which was fun, but I prefer 3/3.5E, which is why I also enjoy Pathfinder 1E.
2E is just about as deadly if run as designed.
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 04:41:11 PM
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:39:58 PM
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 04:37:26 PM
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:13:33 PM
Their D10 system with health levels instead of HP can mean instadeath more often than your typical D&D game, at least for 2E and beyond.
You never played with a GM like Gary then. Or, others that ran the game as intended.
I've never played 1E or its variations. My introduction was with 2E, which was fun, but I prefer 3/3.5E, which is why I also enjoy Pathfinder 1E.
2E is just about as deadly if run as designed.
I played that back in middle school with some peers, so I figure we might not have understood the rules in the same way as adults would.
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 04:20:00 PM
Quote from: Effete on August 31, 2023, 04:18:42 PM
Well, you're logically inconsistent arguments haven't done much to convince me.
There is nothing inconsistent about my arguments. They are the same every time. Perhaps you have a comprehension problem.
You can't truly be this disingenuous.
I said the argument was LOGICALLY inconsistent, not that you were contradicting yourself. The claim, according to you, is that risk of death makes characters more heroic. I countered by asking if Achilles wasn't a hero then, or if a thieving bastard was a hero due to his low HP.
When the game gives you superheroes (as you put it) right from CharGen, then you challenge them with superhero problems. Superman cannot be challenged by physical force, so his problems often stem from making difficult moral decisions. Like in Sam Raimi's Spiderman: "Save the woman you love, or suffer the little children."
All I'm saying is the 5e system is offering a different type of experience than classic DnD. You don't need to like it, but that doesn't make the system itself flawed (the woke garbage is another matter). I'm not sure how this is controversal when you seem to actually agree with me by saying "it's DnD in name only."
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 02:01:07 PM
You can play a hero and and tell a story with the earlier editions The difference is that the older editions don't make characters superheroes at first level. 5e is made so everyone wins and characters are almost difficult to die (because so many people have a fit about characters dying.
In games like OSE characters arent going to go into every room and not fight everyone because there is a real chance of dying. searching isnt one skill and bam I know everything about the room. Players have to role playing searching.
Independent of what one thinks of 5E, I played lots of superhero games in the 1980s and 1990s -- like Champions and Marvel Superheroes. Yes, it was difficult to die in those systems -- but it could still be challenging by having tough opposition and goals other than just kill-or-be-killed.
The deadliness of a game isn't the same as how challenging it is.
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:24:31 PM
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 02:01:07 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
Hit points have nothing to do with realism. Slow natural recovery simply makes the game more challenging. Those who want to play a challenging game play classic D&D.
That's the way D&D was and it makes sense. Losing 40 hit points and then sleeping for 8 hours and bam your ok is just stupid. No one sleeps for 8 hours and is fine, which is way hospitals exist.
Max HP going up with experience levels doesn't make much sense either, yet it's a staple of D&D. I understand what you're getting at, but it's just that logic seems to be selectively applied here by preferences in game mechanics.
Yeah, I mean... Guys, c'mon. D&D has been out for 48 years, and for 48 years (at least as far as I know, I wasn't even born for a couple mor years) people have known HP are an abstraction. I know it was well talked about in the late 80s when I got in to gaming, at the very least. I mean, if you try to look at it rationally, a 1d4 commoner can sleep off a near-fatal wound reducing him to 1hp in a couple of days. He's tougher than a 10th level fighter, who will be down for many weeks potentially from being reduced to 1hp.
It really breaks if you try to think too hard about it and assign it too much credible verisimilitude. It's not that type of system.
Quote from: Bruwulf on August 31, 2023, 05:42:20 PM
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:24:31 PM
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 02:01:07 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 12:53:39 PM
Hit points have nothing to do with realism. Slow natural recovery simply makes the game more challenging. Those who want to play a challenging game play classic D&D.
That's the way D&D was and it makes sense. Losing 40 hit points and then sleeping for 8 hours and bam your ok is just stupid. No one sleeps for 8 hours and is fine, which is way hospitals exist.
Max HP going up with experience levels doesn't make much sense either, yet it's a staple of D&D. I understand what you're getting at, but it's just that logic seems to be selectively applied here by preferences in game mechanics.
Yeah, I mean... Guys, c'mon. D&D has been out for 48 years, and for 48 years (at least as far as I know, I wasn't even born for a couple mor years) people have known HP are an abstraction. I know it was well talked about in the late 80s when I got in to gaming, at the very least. I mean, if you try to look at it rationally, a 1d4 commoner can sleep off a near-fatal wound reducing him to 1hp in a couple of days. He's tougher than a 10th level fighter, who will be down for many weeks potentially from being reduced to 1hp.
It really breaks if you try to think too hard about it and assign it too much credible verisimilitude. It's not that type of system.
Pretty much. Granted, this is why I like the concept of Health Levels more than HP, and with no experience levels involved either, so that they don't generally go up.
But yeah, as long as a HP system is in place, it's not really that much of a stretch to have players fully heal from a rest anymore than it is a stretch to think that more experience somehow gives you exponentially more ability to take damage.
I suppose the concept of healing magic is easier to suspend disbelief for, while the details of HP become a matter of preference rather than of logic.
The problem with overnight healing has very little to do with realism.
If you get back hit points slow, after being hurt, it might be slightly more "realistic". But hit points are already so abstract and unrealistic, that seems like a strange argument to make. It's like arguing fine grades of hotness on different types of really spicy peppers to a person that runs from mild jalapeno fumes.
It's much more a game play issue.
If you get back hit points slow, then it's easier for the players to make choices that end up grinding them down, and it's easier for the GM to adjudicate the consequences in ways that will produce meaningful results. That in turn opens up all kinds of options about resource and time management. If you get hit points back quick, then those options go away--or at least get heavily minimized.
It doesn't matter much if you get all your hit points back overnight because the game said you did, or because cure light wounds wands are cheap and plentiful or because everyone is passing around that super regeneration ring. If the GM has set it up so that recovery isn't a problem, then it isn't. Of course, it matters a little, because some people find some of those ways of justifying getting them all back relatively fast more palatable than others. 3E, 3.5E, 4E, and 5E are no different on this point. They just use a different means to get there. If a GM runs B/X or AD&D or even OD&D by selling healing potions in mass at every town, then that would pretty much put paid to that aspect of those games, too.
If you want a meaningful difference in play, then whatever construct for healing (or anything else for that matter) that is allowing the players to ignore one of the core challenges of the game, has to be kept under control one way or the other.
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 06:38:57 PM
Pretty much. Granted, this is why I like the concept of Health Levels more than HP, and with no experience levels involved either, so that they don't generally go up.
But yeah, as long as a HP system is in place, it's not really that much of a stretch to have players fully heal from a rest anymore than it is a stretch to think that more experience somehow gives you exponentially more ability to take damage.
This is going a bit off topic, but I need to respond. There are games that use Hit Points but treat them like wound levels. Cyberpunk, for instance, has a formula for determining HP, but it rarely increases over the course of play. Dropping below half HP imposes penalties. Recovering HP is also slow if you heal "naturally," encouraging players to spend money on professional care.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 31, 2023, 07:00:34 PM
The problem with overnight healing has very little to do with realism.
If you get back hit points slow, after being hurt, it might be slightly more "realistic". But hit points are already so abstract and unrealistic, that seems like a strange argument to make. It's like arguing fine grades of hotness on different types of really spicy peppers to a person that runs from mild jalapeno fumes.
It's much more a game play issue.
If you get back hit points slow, then it's easier for the players to make choices that end up grinding them down, and it's easier for the GM to adjudicate the consequences in ways that will produce meaningful results. That in turn opens up all kinds of options about resource and time management. If you get hit points back quick, then those options go away--or at least get heavily minimized.
It doesn't matter much if you get all your hit points back overnight because the game said you did, or because cure light wounds wands are cheap and plentiful or because everyone is passing around that super regeneration ring. If the GM has set it up so that recovery isn't a problem, then it isn't. Of course, it matters a little, because some people find some of those ways of justifying getting them all back relatively fast more palatable than others. 3E, 3.5E, 4E, and 5E are no different on this point. They just use a different means to get there. If a GM runs B/X or AD&D or even OD&D by selling healing potions in mass at every town, then that would pretty much put paid to that aspect of those games, too.
If you want a meaningful difference in play, then whatever construct for healing (or anything else for that matter) that is allowing the players to ignore one of the core challenges of the game, has to be kept under control one way or the other.
To be clear, I don't disagree with this.
For myself, I admit that I sort of hand wave some of the downtime mechanics. I don't care if the mage takes eleven days to recover and the fighter takes twenty two days to recover, or whatever. That sort of minutia has never been, to me, what the game is about. But on the other hand, it rubs me the wrong way when players don't appreciate that getting wounded is really a big deal. And even since the beginning, with clerical healing, it's never been a huge problem, so... I don't know. I don't know what the right solution is, and I think it's going to be different for every group.
I just don't like when people try to get too anal about "healing" hit point damage, or try to take hitpoints as some concrete in-world unit, rather than a game mechanic. It gets very silly, very quick.
Quote from: Bruwulf on August 31, 2023, 07:41:27 PM
I just don't like when people try to get too anal about "healing" hit point damage, or try to take hitpoints as some concrete in-world unit, rather than a game mechanic. It gets very silly, very quick.
Well yeah, that's kind of the point. Determine what you need to do to get the game play you want. Then rationalize it the game world however makes sense to you. What other people on the outside think about it is pointless--unless it helps you make that game play even better or the rationalizations even more palatable.
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 31, 2023, 04:43:11 PM
I played that back in middle school with some peers, so I figure we might not have understood the rules in the same way as adults would.
Of course. Most kids play that way. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: Bruwulf on August 31, 2023, 07:41:27 PM
For myself, I admit that I sort of hand wave some of the downtime mechanics. I don't care if the mage takes eleven days to recover and the fighter takes twenty two days to recover, or whatever. That sort of minutia has never been, to me, what the game is about. But on the other hand, it rubs me the wrong way when players don't appreciate that getting wounded is really a big deal. And even since the beginning, with clerical healing, it's never been a huge problem, so... I don't know. I don't know what the right solution is, and I think it's going to be different for every group.
I just don't like when people try to get too anal about "healing" hit point damage, or try to take hitpoints as some concrete in-world unit, rather than a game mechanic. It gets very silly, very quick.
I don't do much bookkeeping on this either. BUT, I estimate and tell the players that they need to hole up in some place to R&R for a few weeks. We don't RP this but game world time goes by while they can't adventure.
Quote from: GhostNinja on August 31, 2023, 02:01:07 PM
That's a silly comment. You can play a hero and and tell a story with the earlier editions The difference is that the older editions don't make characters superheroes at first level. 5e is made so everyone wins and characters are almost difficult to die (because so many people have a fit about characters dying.
In games like OSE characters arent going to go into every room and not fight everyone because there is a real chance of dying. searching isnt one skill and bam I know everything about the room. Players have to role playing searching.
The difference being that earlier editions were not about telling stories. Stories were told of mighty deeds or tragic endings AFTER the game. The objectives of play are one of the most important aspects of game design. WOTC editions are designed with different objectives of play than AD&D or B/X for example.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 08:52:03 PM
The difference being that earlier editions were not about telling stories.
NO edition is about telling stories. They are about characters having adventures, reacting to the world. Stories are something that is told AFTER something has happened. Are you on drugs?
Quote from: Scooter on August 31, 2023, 08:59:33 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 08:52:03 PM
The difference being that earlier editions were not about telling stories.
NO edition is about telling stories. They are about characters having adventures, reacting to the world. Stories are something that is told AFTER something has happened. Are you on drugs?
I guess you haven't played or even been exposed to WOTC D&D lately. The entire game is now marketed around creating heroic stories with your friends. I guess you missed the part about the importance of objectives of play and how WOTC has changed them in their products. Is your reading comprehension impaired?
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 09:52:28 PM
I guess you haven't played or even been exposed to WOTC D&D lately.
Yes, I have and you are on drugs. There is nothing about sitting down and telling your players a story while the listen instead of playing characters in real time reacting to the game environment. Stop with the drugs already
Quote from: Scooter on September 01, 2023, 09:33:23 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 09:52:28 PM
I guess you haven't played or even been exposed to WOTC D&D lately.
Yes, I have and you are on drugs. There is nothing about sitting down and telling your players a story while the listen instead of playing characters in real time reacting to the game environment. Stop with the drugs already
Who said anything about the DM just sitting there telling a story? I am referring OBJECTIVES OF PLAY being about telling a COLLABORATIVE STORY through the medium of PLAYING THE GAME. That is a complete change of said OBJECTIVES OF PLAY from early editions.
5E Players Handbook: PREFACE
"Playing D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation.
You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension
and memorable drama."
Now please find for me a similar reference to collaborative story creation in AD&D or B/X and get back to me.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 01, 2023, 12:12:20 PMPlaying D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation.
You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension
and memorable drama
Creating stories is not telling stories.
I'm too lazy to look up rules, so I make a good guess.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 01, 2023, 12:55:46 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 01, 2023, 12:12:20 PMPlaying D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation.
You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension
and memorable drama
Creating stories is not telling stories.
Correct, nor is it an objective of play for actual D&D.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 01, 2023, 12:55:46 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 01, 2023, 12:12:20 PMPlaying D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation.
You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension
and memorable drama
Creating stories is not telling stories.
There should be a language comp test to be able to post. Those with 2nd grade comp level should have to take classes before posting. Although by age 5 I knew the difference between story telling and gathering content to make a story, for later telling. So maybe drop that to Kindergarten comprehension level.
Quote from: Scooter on September 01, 2023, 04:28:05 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 01, 2023, 12:55:46 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 01, 2023, 12:12:20 PMPlaying D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation.
You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension
and memorable drama
Creating stories is not telling stories.
There should be a language comp test to be able to post. Those with 2nd grade comp level should have to take classes before posting. Although by age 5 I knew the difference between story telling and gathering content to make a story, for later telling. So maybe drop that to Kindergarten comprehension level.
Your inability to grasp the concept of objectives of play in regard to game design is not my problem. Good day sir.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 01, 2023, 12:12:20 PM
Quote from: Scooter on September 01, 2023, 09:33:23 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 31, 2023, 09:52:28 PM
I guess you haven't played or even been exposed to WOTC D&D lately.
Yes, I have and you are on drugs. There is nothing about sitting down and telling your players a story while the listen instead of playing characters in real time reacting to the game environment. Stop with the drugs already
Who said anything about the DM just sitting there telling a story? I am referring OBJECTIVES OF PLAY being about telling a COLLABORATIVE STORY through the medium of PLAYING THE GAME. That is a complete change of said OBJECTIVES OF PLAY from early editions.
5E Players Handbook: PREFACE
"Playing D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation.
You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension
and memorable drama."
Now please find for me a similar reference to collaborative story creation in AD&D or B/X and get back to me.
Why don't you just admit that you're unable to match the majestic intellect that is Scooter and call it a day. You can't beat genius like this.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/519/289/3d0)
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 01, 2023, 12:12:20 PM
5E Players Handbook: PREFACE
"Playing D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation.
You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension
and memorable drama."
Now please find for me a similar reference to collaborative story creation in AD&D or B/X and get back to me.
I agree that there's been a shift from the wargaming of early D&D to more story-focused, but it's one of degrees rather than absolutes. AD&D1 had Dragonlance starting in 1984; AD&D2 had other story-centric modules like the Ravenloft setting. From the 2nd ed DMG, for example:
QuoteLike so much in a good role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play. The DM is both the playwright and the director, creating a theatrical combat. If a character wants to try wrestling a storm giant to the ground, let him; a character who tries leaping from a second floor window onto the back of a passing orc is adding to everyone's fun.
The trick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than with what is happening at each instant of play.
The D20 System of D&D3 was in many ways a rejection of the more story-centric modules of the 1990s, and it emphasized more of a wargaming approach with miniatures.
Here is my 2c:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2O_2iDWEAIkND5?format=jpg&name=small)
People always had their house rules. From the moment the game was conceived. The Perrin Conventions were created in 1976 or before. Gygax used house rules (google "Gygax house rules").
I'd have a hard time writing a game exactly as written nowadays.
EDIT: I prefer to adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules (in D&D). But you cannot understand the spirit if you don't understand WHY certain rules were made. And sometimes you must admit the WHY is "because the table didn't fit the page" or "because Gygax changed his mind" (sometimes mid-writing).
Also: From the 1st edition AD&D DMG... (via Diversity & Dragons):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2A39afWUAAYmNb?format=jpg&name=small)
If you really think about it, each new version of a system is essentially an official "houserule." It's the developer looking at the rules and saying, "I think we can improve this somewhat." You expect a professional developer to make balanced changes that work on a table, but anybody that truly understands the interconnectivity of a game system can make those same changes.
Yet even balanced rules carry some subjectivity from the one who wrote it. Everyone has their own preferred method of running /playing a game, and that's really at the heart of a good houserule. That's how you can get two different people who both love one game system look at a new version and come away with completely different opinions on it. There's nothing wrong with playing a game RAW if it hits on the ways you like to have to fun. For everyone else, there's houserules.
Quote from: Effete on September 02, 2023, 10:05:07 PM
If you really think about it, each new version of a system is essentially an official "houserule." It's the developer looking at the rules and saying, "I think we can improve this somewhat." You expect a professional developer to make balanced changes that work on a table, but anybody that truly understands the interconnectivity of a game system can make those same changes.
Yet even balanced rules carry some subjectivity from the one who wrote it. Everyone has their own preferred method of running /playing a game, and that's really at the heart of a good houserule. That's how you can get two different people who both love one game system look at a new version and come away with completely different opinions on it. There's nothing wrong with playing a game RAW if it hits on the ways you like to have to fun. For everyone else, there's houserules.
Ah balance. It is important to distinguish between several types of balance. There is strict rules balance and then there is campaign balance. Strict game balance is represented by a game such as 4E D&D, and to a bit of a lesser extent 5E D&D. This is more strict "table" type of balance in which every player character is roughly equal to other player characters. Every class has things they are better at than others but the systems are designed to balance at an encounter level rather than a campaign level. Every ability is calculated to contribute X amount to an encounter. No real thought is given to the campaign as a whole beyond the adventuring day in most cases. In 4E when we played it, it felt like everyone was pretty much doing the same stuff using different "power sources" to do it. It felt more like a superhero game than D&D honestly. 1E AD&D had several sections in the DMG regarding campaign balance. This type of balance was for the campaign as a whole and not a per adventuring day thing. Classes felt a lot more different because not all of them were equal in combat effectiveness nor were they intended to be. Magic use in combat was an uncertain proposition. Unless you really got the drop on something there was no way of knowing if your spell would be disrupted and lost. Campaign flavor and popular fantasy tropes were also available without the need to balance by the encounter. The enchantress who charms a dull guard and has him under her spell for days, weeks, or even months is a cool campaign element but not possible when the encounter/adventuring day has to be maintained. So when speaking of balance it is important to define waht type of balance is a given house rule going for.
.
0
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 02, 2023, 11:05:53 PM
Ah balance. It is important to distinguish between several types of balance. There is strict rules balance and then there is campaign balance. Strict game balance is represented by a game such as 4E D&D, and to a bit of a lesser extent 5E D&D. This is more strict "table" type of balance in which every player character is roughly equal to other player characters. Every class has things they are better at than others but the systems are designed to balance at an encounter level rather than a campaign level. Every ability is calculated to contribute X amount to an encounter. No real thought is given to the campaign as a whole beyond the adventuring day in most cases. In 4E when we played it, it felt like everyone was pretty much doing the same stuff using different "power sources" to do it. It felt more like a superhero game than D&D honestly. 1E AD&D had several sections in the DMG regarding campaign balance. This type of balance was for the campaign as a whole and not a per adventuring day thing. Classes felt a lot more different because not all of them were equal in combat effectiveness nor were they intended to be. Magic use in combat was an uncertain proposition. Unless you really got the drop on something there was no way of knowing if your spell would be disrupted and lost. Campaign flavor and popular fantasy tropes were also available without the need to balance by the encounter. The enchantress who charms a dull guard and has him under her spell for days, weeks, or even months is a cool campaign element but not possible when the encounter/adventuring day has to be maintained. So when speaking of balance it is important to define what type of balance is a given house rule going for.
Naturally. But to even know where to start, someone needs to understand the purpose of the RAW and why they want to change it.
"Balance," however, is not quite as binary as you make it out to be. There is plenty of grey area there, a sometimes a houserule needs to address BOTH types of balance. For example, 5e strives for "character/class" balance, but there is also a degree of campaign balance implied. If you took 5e RAW and dumped it into a world where magic was strictly forbidden and anyone even suspected of being magically attuned was hunted down and summarily executed, then you are suddenly playing a very different game. IIRC, something like seven out of the ten classes use magic in some way, shape, or form. If the conceits of the campaign are now making players double-think their "go-to" strategies, then that has a knock-on effect with class balance. If the worlock can no longer just sling eldritch blasts around willy-nilly, then the class would begin to feel comparatively weaker than a fighter or rogue. The idea of having casually-accepted magic in a 5e game is almost a necessity to even play it with the intended "balance."
If you change the expectations of the campaign world, you also need to examine how this affects the individual classes. Incidentally, skill-based games don't really suffer this problem since it's much easier for a GM to arbitrate the value of any particular skill than it is to adjust class features.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 02, 2023, 03:23:12 PM
Here is my 2c:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2O_2iDWEAIkND5?format=jpg&name=small)
People always had their house rules. From the moment the game was conceived. The Perrin Conventions were created in 1976 or before. Gygax used house rules (google "Gygax house rules").
I'd have a hard time writing a game exactly as written nowadays.
EDIT: I prefer to adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules (in D&D). But you cannot understand the spirit if you don't understand WHY certain rules were made. And sometimes you must admit the WHY is "because the table didn't fit the page" or "because Gygax changed his mind" (sometimes mid-writing).
Also: From the 1st edition AD&D DMG... (via Diversity & Dragons):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2A39afWUAAYmNb?format=jpg&name=small)
Best post of the whole thread 8)
Re: Balance in D&D - there is none. Stop lying to yourself. Mages outclass everybody.
Quote from: Theory of Games on September 03, 2023, 06:51:47 AM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on September 02, 2023, 03:23:12 PM
Here is my 2c:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2O_2iDWEAIkND5?format=jpg&name=small)
People always had their house rules. From the moment the game was conceived. The Perrin Conventions were created in 1976 or before. Gygax used house rules (google "Gygax house rules").
I'd have a hard time writing a game exactly as written nowadays.
EDIT: I prefer to adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules (in D&D). But you cannot understand the spirit if you don't understand WHY certain rules were made. And sometimes you must admit the WHY is "because the table didn't fit the page" or "because Gygax changed his mind" (sometimes mid-writing).
Also: From the 1st edition AD&D DMG... (via Diversity & Dragons):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2A39afWUAAYmNb?format=jpg&name=small)
Best post of the whole thread 8)
Re: Balance in D&D - there is none. Stop lying to yourself. Mages outclass everybody.
Or, if you're playing Pathfinder, Paladins and Anti-Paladins do.
Quote from: Theory of Games on September 03, 2023, 06:51:47 AM
Re: Balance in D&D - there is none. Stop lying to yourself. Mages outclass everybody.
Depends on at what level of play
Quote from: Scooter on September 03, 2023, 09:54:18 AM
Quote from: Theory of Games on September 03, 2023, 06:51:47 AM
Re: Balance in D&D - there is none. Stop lying to yourself. Mages outclass everybody.
Depends on at what level of play
Which is another way of saying the same thing. Mages basically go from being underpowered to overpowered. There's only a very narrow sweet spot where they're at parity with casters.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 03, 2023, 02:08:50 PM
Quote from: Scooter on September 03, 2023, 09:54:18 AM
Quote from: Theory of Games on September 03, 2023, 06:51:47 AM
Re: Balance in D&D - there is none. Stop lying to yourself. Mages outclass everybody.
Depends on at what level of play
Which is another way of saying the same thing.
No, it is a completely different sentence with a completely different meaning.
Quote from: Scooter on September 03, 2023, 02:51:25 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 03, 2023, 02:08:50 PM
Quote from: Scooter on September 03, 2023, 09:54:18 AM
Quote from: Theory of Games on September 03, 2023, 06:51:47 AM
Re: Balance in D&D - there is none. Stop lying to yourself. Mages outclass everybody.
Depends on at what level of play
Which is another way of saying the same thing.
No, it is a completely different sentence with a completely different meaning.
Well, you're half right. That's something.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 03, 2023, 03:03:59 PM
Well, you're half right. That's something.
Get back to me after some ESL classes ::)
I feel I am at total liberty to house rule D&D; because the people who have owned D&D, kept changing it themselves.
Quote from: Jam The MF on September 04, 2023, 01:47:58 PM
I feel I am at total liberty to house rule D&D; because the people who have owned D&D, kept changing it themselves.
Even if they didn't, and it never officially changed, why would you feel not at liberty to change things your personal group prefers?
Rules are my bitch.
But that's why I prefer OSR games where they're a lot less rules and thus less bad rules that need changing. More often, its a rule that doesn't work for this particular campaign or setting that needs tweaking to achieve greater verisimilitude or improve setting immersion.