Quote from: One Horse Town;941024Yeah, our group running through Storm King's Thunder has a dwarven cleric of Nike in it.

Just cure it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;941098There's a belief that the bodies of the dead are still sacred by several societies in most of the game worlds.

They kinda stop being sacred when they try to kill you and take your stuff (flesh, blood, brains, soul, whatever...).

Quote from: The Butcher;941110"Flagged"? As in, with "optional rule" headers?

No, flagged as in a section in the Dungeon Master's Guide that says, "Hi, we want to help you make your own worlds using the D&D system, so for convenience's sake here is a list of mechanics that are strongly affected by setting choices and that you might overlook:
Page XX - This ranger feature that a player might choose as their main source of extra damage might never pay off if there aren't enough large creatures to fight.
etc."

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;9410775e makes alignment less important mechanically, but increases its relevance to the setting. For example, evil humanoids are explicitly stated to be more or less robots programmed to be evil. The conceit of good and evil being cosmological constants, at least as portrayed in the game as opposed to more nuanced portrayals like Zoroastrianism, is extremely bizarre and leads to very strange behavior like religions of evil, nations of evil, inherently evil races, and numerous other things. These are necessarily divorced from the real world conceits of good and evil, which boil down to morality being centered around the person doing the talking.

This wouldn't be a problem if we were given tools for running settings with more realistic (read: ambiguous and hypocritical) morality. Instead, everyone who runs 5e is expected to use a setting where good and evil are cosmological constants responsible for the conflict of the campaign. We are not given any option to run, say, the morally ambiguous freedom/control conflict present in the Stormbringer books, the universally evil morality in "grimdark" fiction (i.e. a recent fad which may be succinctly described as an Aristocrats joke contest), or the painstakingly constructed moral codes in World of Darkness or Palladium books.

Can you give some examples? I admit I have not been good about reading the 'fluff' of 5e (since I'm basically using it as a new ruleset to play in the game world I would have run with BECMI anyways, other than adding half-elves, gnomes, etc.), but I don't remember seeing anything that would make me say that 5e shifts more towards any of these.

Quote from: JeremyR;941097One of the tings that was always built into D&D — Undead — always struck me as making no sense. If undead actually exist in your world, why on Earth (or Oerth or Mystara, etc) wouldn't you cremate bodies? Or let birds eat them or whatever.

A lot of things that exist in D&D don't make 100% sense without either 1) additional input from the DM ("one demon forgotten in the wilderness can't slowly summon a world-conquering army of them because "), or 2) an expectation that previous stasis is being disrupted ("cremating the dead is not a practice in because undead haven't really been an issue there. This is a new phenomenon caused by "). Same is true for how populations of bronze-age barbarians can share a border with plate mail wearing sub-renaissance cultures--either something is going on (insert DM explanation here), or we're looking at a single point before which everything is about to change.

Quote from: The Butcher;941110I feel the problem with "flagging" any content as "optional" is suggesting that everything not flagged is "not optional" (which is to say, compulsory) which is patently ridiculous.

The game and the publishers (TSR and WotC) seem to have gone back and forth on this. 2e AD&D implied a lot that it was a toolbox, but didn't use the optional tag much. 3e... I wonder how much of the "this edition is so BROKEN! Pay attention to me!" whining would have not happened if they had put a simple disclaimer saying "if you allow your players to mix feats, PRCs, and races from 5 disparate supplements and they end up creating something that can curb stomp a tarrasque, that's on you" or whether people would have considered that apostasy.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;941162No, flagged as in a section in the Dungeon Master's Guide that says, "Hi, we want to help you make your own worlds using the D&D system, so for convenience's sake here is a list of mechanics that are strongly affected by setting choices and that you might overlook:
Page XX - This ranger feature that a player might choose as their main source of extra damage might never pay off if there aren't enough large creatures to fight.
etc."

I just flipped through the core books and realized something. D&D 5e does address what you are talking right in the DMG. The intro breaks it down and the FIRST thing they leap into is making the setting of your campaign what you want to be.

For example

QuoteThis book, the Player's Handbook, and the Monster Manual present the default assumptions for how the worlds of D&D work.

Right there in the first column of the first chapter of the DM the authros flat state there are assumptions baked in.

One page 287 they devote a section on what you need to consider when modifying classes.

QuoteThe classes in the Player's Handbook capture a wide range of character archetypes, but your campaign world might have need of something more. The following section discusses ways to modify existing classes to better serve your game's needs.

The whole DMG goes on and on with this theme of explaining the default, explaining the options, and offering suggestions on how to do various things.

So the OP is pretty much off-base when it comes to D&D 5e. After reading the 5e DMG, I don't see how a person can NOT comprehend that the authors intend that referee mold D&D to fit their setting and play style and not the other way around.

Err, you completely ignored the point of my post that you quoted Estar.

Telling us as a broad general statement that it's ok to mod the game is all well and good, but specific details of things to watch out for would be really helpful when dealing with a game that has so many moving parts.

So do you want to make a list here, or is it important that the designers should have included it in the book?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;941181Err, you completely ignored the point of my post that you quoted Estar.

Telling us as a broad general statement that it's ok to mod the game is all well and good, but specific details of things to watch out for would be really helpful when dealing with a game that has so many moving parts.

You are acting like you haven't read the 5e DMG. It is not broad. The D&D 5e DMG devotes a considerable amount of words explaining the situation, explaining the options and offers some specific rules options to use in some cases.

More telling it devotes far more pages to customization than usual for a D&D edition and for a RPG of devoted to a specific genre. The only RPGs that devote more to this are the one that meant to be generic as part of their design like GURPS, Fate, and Hero System.

Quote from: The Butcher;941018D&D has always had an "implied setting".

The idea that the DM is somehow under obligation to allow everything in the rulebook(s) is bullshit.

Put the chairs on the tables, turn out the lights, and don't forget to lock up.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;941036You are not, to my knowledge, deficient in reading skills, psychological state, intelligence, understanding of D&D history, nor skill as a GM.

To my knowledge, ShipLock's deficient in at least three of those five, and the jury's still deliberating on the other two.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;941076. . . loss aversion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion) is a real thing and in my experience gamers are particularly susceptible to it.

Don't play with emotional four year-olds.

Quote from: HappyDaze;941154They kinda stop being sacred when they try to kill you and take your stuff (flesh, blood, brains, soul, whatever...).

Not necessarily - my favorite character in Fear the Walking Dead was Celia Flores, who cared very much for the zombies and saw the infection as a new beginning, so much so that she sought to help others make the 'transition.'

Quote from: Willie the Duck;941183So do you want to make a list here, or is it important that the designers should have included it in the book?

That's kind of what I did at the start of the thread, and I asked if anyone else could think of other specifics. I feel it would have been nice to include such a list, but they didn't so I'm doing it for my benefit and anyone else who happens by and finds such an examination useful.

Quote from: EstarYou are acting like you haven't read the 5e DMG.

I have, and I disagree that it singles out the kind of pitfalls like the ranger option's dependence on large creatures. I keep going back to that example, but there are lots of little things like that all over the place that can suddenly pop up in the middle of a session. Obviously you can fix them mid-play, but I would be nice to know of them in advance during the planning stages.

For the record, this isn't some kind of bitter tirade against the system. I've stated what would have been nice, but it's hardly a dealbreaker.

By the way, to everyone responding to this thread like I'm out of line, notice those words I keep bolding? Notice how I'm not saying, "Fuck these designers, this list was goddamn required, worst edition EV4R!"?

Quote from:  Christopher BradyFair enough. I'd also like to note that your opening seemed more aggressive than perhaps intended.

How!? I'm getting grief over this, yet when I look back on my opening post...

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

How the heck did so many of you go from 'a little inconvenient at times' and my well-meaning attempt to list things to "Shipyard Locked is viciously trashing 5e out of staggering ignorance, let's race to the game's rescue!"?

Quote from: Black VulmeaThe usual smug troll garbage.

Go shove a Winchester '73 up your ass Mike.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;941200Go shove a Winchester '73 up your ass Mike.

You're being mocked by far better than me, which really should tell you something.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;941200I have, and I disagree that it singles out the kind of pitfalls like the ranger option's dependence on large creatures. I keep going back to that example, but there are lots of little things like that all over the place that can suddenly pop up in the middle of a session. Obviously you can fix them mid-play, but I would be nice to know of them in advance during the planning stages.

A closer look at the "larger" creature issue. There is exactly ONE mechanic in the entire ranger class where the fact the creature is large size matters. One of the options for Hunter's Prey you get from picking the Hunter Archetype at 3rd level.

QuoteGiant Killer. When a Large or larger creature within 5 feet of you hits or misses you with an attack, you can use your reaction to attack that creature immediately after its attack, provided that you can see the creature.

So there is a significance issue that could be given here where in light of all the issues confronting the referee in order to customizing the rules for his campaign. Do you even need to write about this?

Now look at how it is presented. It an option of the Hunter archetype, it is also labeled as GIANT KILLER. I don't think that you have to spell out that if your campaign involve either the Wilderness, Giants, or large creatures. That this feature and indeed the entire archetype will be sort of well useless.

Let look another issue you raise that of the Monk. Like all the 5e classes it comes with a introductory paragraph that lays out in natural english what the class is about.

QuoteWhatever their discipline, monks are united in their ability lo magically harness the energy that flows in their bodies. Whether channeled as a striking display of combat prowess or a subtler focus of defensive ability and speed, this energy infuses all that a monk does.

If any part of this doesn't work with your setting it obvious that using the Monk class isn't suitable for your campaign.

D&D 5e is not a intricate weave of mechanics that makes it what it is. Like the classic editions it is a set of simple mechanics with shopping lists of stuff (classes, monsters, magic items, spells, etc) layered on top that form the game. The shopping lists can be chopped and diced to a greater and lesser degree and still D&D 5e.

This is especially obvious when you compare Adventures in Middle Earth versus. The Players Handbook. By presenting a different set of shopping lists, Cubicle 7 successfully transformed D&D 5e into a RPG that captures the feel of Middle Earth.

I am critical of your assertion because it over complicates the basic issue. The strength of Classic D&D and games like it (including D&D 5e) has always been how easily it can be altered to suit a particular setting or style of campaign.

And in D&D 5e case, the author devotes considerable amount of words explaining the the why of various elements of the game. Then in the DMG goes further and explores in depth how to customize and tweak the game further. Not only that but presents alternatives.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;941200For the record, this isn't some kind of bitter tirade against the system. I've stated what would have been nice, but it's hardly a dealbreaker.

Yes you been writing nicely about nonsense. Doesn't make any less nons

Quote from: estar;941213Yes you been writing nicely about nonsense. Doesn't make any less nons

I'm baffled, truly baffled that you're managing to quote me repeatedly and still completely miss my point and insult me about things I'm not even talking about.

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

See you all in a few months.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;941162No, flagged as in a section in the Dungeon Master's Guide that says, "Hi, we want to help you make your own worlds using the D&D system, so for convenience's sake here is a list of mechanics that are strongly affected by setting choices and that you might overlook:
Page XX - This ranger feature that a player might choose as their main source of extra damage might never pay off if there aren't enough large creatures to fight.
etc."

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;941181Telling us as a broad general statement that it's ok to mod the game is all well and good, but specific details of things to watch out for would be really helpful when dealing with a game that has so many moving parts.

This would be super user-friendly in a day and age where creating and running an open-ended campaign world (and whittling down today's rulesets into the engine that cranks out the world you want to run) is all but a lost art outside of the OSR, but it would take reams upon reams of pages to dwell, however briskly, into every possible setting ramification of every class, spell, item and monster. And there would still be corner cases not covered by the writer who would catch tons of flak for each oversight.

I believe "a broad general statement" is pretty much the only sane way to go.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;941222I'm done with this. I've repeatedly clarified my intent, but apparently I've been designated the 'bad guy' for some reason, so little constructive discussion can come of this.

This is an old issue, where both problem and solution are long familiar to many of the posters who showed up to post. Which is why some people may be coming across as dismissive.

It is not for the faint of heart, to come up with a world (or even to adopt one of the many published studies ones) and to make sure the rules' output lines up with everyone's expectations. All too often, the process is imperfect and requires fine-tuning well into established campaigns. Like old school open-heart surgery, GMing sometimes requires you to repair critical bits of an engine while it's running.

Thankfully, it's just a game, there's not a lot at stake, and if the players whine it's because they're whiny bitches and they can skip the next session and/or run their own fucking game.

Don't get worked up and leave in a huff. No one's calling you the "bad guy." Your stance is a bit... perplexing but at the heart of the matter is something I believe we've all had to deal with at some point as GMs.

Do get away from the keyboard and chill.

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

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

See you all in a few months.

What I find interesting is that people seem to agree with your main idea, then state that, because you can ignore or tweak the framework assumptions, somehow they're no longer there. If the system has baked in conceits, and the cook admits to the ingredients, then the statement SL is making is essentially correct--there IS an expectation inherent in the delivery systems. Just because you can ignore or tweak them doesn't mean they're not there. Or, to put it another way, a presentation of alternatives is an admission there is a default expectation. So you can say the OP is essentially correct in his basic premise, while at the same time agreeing that you can shape the contents.

Of course, this IS the rpgsite. When you say yin, expect some yanging, if only for the sake of yanging. There's always a rack of dick-caps next to the open door of a thread. They fit so well, some of us just have to put them on.