Will you make the switch come go time in Feb 2024?
I'm eager to start as a DM on the changes I've seen so far, but I'm hearing crickets from my players, they don't like the changes. Mostly because it's shaping up to be a major power shift. 5th is all about super powerful player characters. 5.5 seems to railroad those players into hard choices. Didn't pick high strength, then no you can't take a Barbarian level. Took INT as a dump stat? Then no you can't grab wizard levels. Want to go min max and make stupidly powerful kalashtar gloomstalker Artificer Cheesebot 9000? Well, you can't because that doesn't exist now.
It wipes the slate clean of all the bloat. Which I love.
Yeah, for about 2 days or so..... I am so tired of the edition carousels.
As for my group, they are taking the edition change as an excuse to look a bit beyond D&D for some, but others are staunchly in the 5E or bust camp. They don't want to learn new rules.
Me? I would rather go out and explore new settings, new conventions, and new systems to run them. However, the "D&D or Bust" barrier is a real thing, even after breaking it!
I'll admit, I haven't played D&D regularly since my days with 3E and 4E a very long time ago. I enjoyed both for what they were, and while I was intrigued by 5E, I never found a group that wanted to play, and managed to get my RP/tactical battling fix out of board games like Shadows of Brimstone.
I'll probably keep an eye on 6E, but based on what I read of 5E's development, the sentiment seemed to be more about leaving behind aspects of my favourite era (4E) than anything, so unless that turns about quickly, I doubt this will be aimed at me in particular.
Which is fine. I've still got my 4E books and can run the game anytime if I felt so inclined. I really enjoyed 3E but gave away my collection to someone who lost everything in a forest fire years ago.
I'm eager to start as a DM on the changes I've seen so far, but I'm hearing crickets from my players, they don't like the changes. Mostly because it's shaping up to be a major power shift. 5th is all about super powerful player characters. 5.5 seems to railroad those players into hard choices. Didn't pick high strength, then no you can't take a Barbarian level. Took INT as a dump stat? Then no you can't grab wizard levels. Want to go min max and make stupidly powerful kalashtar gloomstalker Artificer Cheesebot 9000? Well, you can't because that doesn't exist now.
It wipes the slate clean of all the bloat. Which I love.
Unless they last-minute backtracked on all their promises, it cleans up none of the 'bloat.' (not that 5e had much bloat) This is supposed to be 100% compatible with existing material (though likely more like 90%), with people being able to choose between new and old versions.
Also not sure where you came up with February. No official date has been announced yet, but a social media slip indicated May for the Players Handbook (though that has been officially denied [in the latest playtest survey results video] as not the date, and was never the date). I'd expect August for GenCon marketing reasons.
I've made the jump to other D&D adjacent systems now, so I won't be sticking with 5e OR moving to the new edition. I don't mind 5e but I got quite tired of it by the end, and I'm currently playing an OD&D retroclone called White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Campaigns (FMAG for short!) which I find really great, it's like 5 euro on Amazon for an A5 digest book 144 pages that has player rules, DM rules and monsters all in one book. Obviously pretty stripped down, but I'm running it for my lunchtime school D&D club and enjoying myself a lot because it plays so much faster we can get a lot more adventure packed into our 40 minutes.
Aside from that I have Dungeon Crawl Classics if I want a heavier system, Worlds Without Number if I want something with more "player build options" (tbh, unlikely) and One Ring 5e if I want to do low magic Tolkienesque games.
All cheaper than getting the three core books for any edition.
I hope 6e is good but I won't be playing or buying into it, I have enough stuff as is.
Da Boss wrote: I've made the jump to other D&D adjacent systems now, so I won't be sticking with 5e OR moving to the new edition. I don't mind 5e but I got quite tired of it by the end, and I'm currently playing an OD&D retroclone called White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Campaigns (FMAG for short!) which I find really great, it's like 5 euro on Amazon for an A5 digest book 144 pages that has player rules, DM rules and monsters all in one book. Obviously pretty stripped down, but I'm running it for my lunchtime school D&D club and enjoying myself a lot because it plays so much faster we can get a lot more adventure packed into our 40 minutes.
Aside from that I have Dungeon Crawl Classics if I want a heavier system, Worlds Without Number if I want something with more "player build options" (tbh, unlikely) and One Ring 5e if I want to do low magic Tolkienesque games.
All cheaper than getting the three core books for any edition.
I hope 6e is good but I won't be playing or buying into it, I have enough stuff as is.
Can I ask where you got a digital copy of the White Box? I've been dying to get a game going in D&D .01, like Gygax's first RP Bible. But it's hard to find total accurate digital transcripts. Any help!
By a strange coincidence, a friend has asked me to help him sell off a bunch of 1st ed. AD&D books and modules.
Going through the collection has gotten me nostalgic for the pure simplicity of the Basic Game, which 5th in many ways echoes.
Zero appetite to move beyond what I have. Indeed, I'm actually looking at picking up more Basic/Expert dungeons because they seemed to mesh very well with 5th.
Da Boss wrote: I've made the jump to other D&D adjacent systems now, so I won't be sticking with 5e OR moving to the new edition. I don't mind 5e but I got quite tired of it by the end, and I'm currently playing an OD&D retroclone called White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Campaigns (FMAG for short!) which I find really great, it's like 5 euro on Amazon for an A5 digest book 144 pages that has player rules, DM rules and monsters all in one book. Obviously pretty stripped down, but I'm running it for my lunchtime school D&D club and enjoying myself a lot because it plays so much faster we can get a lot more adventure packed into our 40 minutes.
Aside from that I have Dungeon Crawl Classics if I want a heavier system, Worlds Without Number if I want something with more "player build options" (tbh, unlikely) and One Ring 5e if I want to do low magic Tolkienesque games.
All cheaper than getting the three core books for any edition.
I hope 6e is good but I won't be playing or buying into it, I have enough stuff as is.
Can I ask where you got a digital copy of the White Box? I've been dying to get a game going in D&D .01, like Gygax's first RP Bible. But it's hard to find total accurate digital transcripts. Any help!
If you want the real proper LBBs I think you can buy them from Wizards, but I had a look on their webstore and found it a nightmare to navigate so I couldn't find them!
The largest problem with getting a game of 1ED going, or even 3rd, is 5th is basically the Apple to 1ED's Linux/C+. It's just not easy as 5th. 5th is made to get a literal baby into the game. 1st you need at least high school level math skills, a penchant for starting over(Being ok with failure and trying again), and an ability to take extremely copious notes. Also, the Chaotic Evil ability to sacrifice friends and hirelings to traps and instant death shenanigans. 5th is an escapist fantasy with light combat. 1st is a medical combat survival horror fantasy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just found this:
Cheers!
1e might be more complicated, they definitely made it a bit more kludgey as time went on.
But I find 0e or OD&D really simple to onboard people with. Compare making a character in 0e to 5e:
0e:
1. Roll 3d6 and assign them to your stats in order (simple math, no drop the lowest, no choices to be made).
2. Look at your stats. If high strength, go fighter or dwarf fighter. If high wis, go cleric. If high int, go elf or magic user. If high dex or crap stats but Thief is being used, go thief.
3. If any score is 15 or above, put a +1 beside it. If any score is below 6, put a -1 beside it.
4. Roll hit points. D6, if you are a fighter add 1, if you have constitution 15 or above, add 1.
5. Write down your save - one number you must roll above to resist effects.
6. If you are a magic user, choose 4 spells from the magic user level 1 list.
7. Roll 3d6, multiply by ten. Use the result to buy gear.
8. Your AC is 10. Add the bonus for any purchased armour.
9. Add together the weight of your items.
What's really good about this system is there aren't really a lot of choices for the player to make. They don't have to read about the different races and classes, the dice pretty much decide the character so they discover them rather than build them. Also, all weapons do D6 damage, so new players only have to worry about 2 dice types - d20 for attack rolls and D6 for everything else, including weapon damage.
5e:
1. Choose race, subrace and class. Involves reading through at least a brief description of 9 different classes and 8 races.
2. Roll stats. 4d6 drop the lowest. Assign stats to scores (means you have to understand the significance of the different scores) and then add race bonuses on top.
3. Calculate bonuses and penalties to stats. Subtract 10 and divide by 4 to find the bonus. (this confuses a lot of new players).
4. Choose background. This can take a long time, and it can also slow you down if you try not to have overlap in skills and might involve reading tool proficiencies.
5. Choose skills. Again, a lot of options here and players may want to read over what the skills mean. Add numbers to find skill bonus.
6. If you are a magic user, choose spells (usually multiple cantrips and first level spells).
7. Choose equipment from the lists provided. Equipment can vary a lot so you kind of need to look at what different equipment can do. But the list format does streamline it compared to OD&D.
8. Calculate hit points by following the formula given. Record hit dice.
9. Look up AC for your armour type and add dexterity bonus.
10. If feats are being used, choose feats.
11. Calculate attack bonuses and write down attacks.
You could quibble about the steps, but the important point is a 5e character requires way more decisions to be made by the player and has many more rules that impact them that the player needs to understand. There's much more chance for a player to make a "bad" choice and be unhappy. In OD&D the concept of a "build" doesn't exist, because there just aren't really many choices to be made and your character is rolled randomly anyway.
I've found it's much easier to introduce kids to OD&D than 5e, you can be up and running in 5 minutes easily whereas 5e characters can take 30 minutes to make and require much more looking in the PHB.
That said, I would recommend using ascending AC options given in retroclones, because negative AC is a bit more of a hassle for most people - addition is just more intuitive for people than subtraction.
Da Boss wrote: Cheers!
1e might be more complicated, they definitely made it a bit more kludgey as time went on.
But I find 0e or OD&D really simple to onboard people with. Compare making a character in 0e to 5e:
0e:
1. Roll 3d6 and assign them to your stats in order (simple math, no drop the lowest, no choices to be made).
2. Look at your stats. If high strength, go fighter or dwarf fighter. If high wis, go cleric. If high int, go elf or magic user. If high dex or crap stats but Thief is being used, go thief.
3. If any score is 15 or above, put a +1 beside it. If any score is below 6, put a -1 beside it.
4. Roll hit points. D6, if you are a fighter add 1, if you have constitution 15 or above, add 1.
5. Write down your save - one number you must roll above to resist effects.
6. If you are a magic user, choose 4 spells from the magic user level 1 list.
7. Roll 3d6, multiply by ten. Use the result to buy gear.
8. Your AC is 10. Add the bonus for any purchased armour.
9. Add together the weight of your items.
What's really good about this system is there aren't really a lot of choices for the player to make. They don't have to read about the different races and classes, the dice pretty much decide the character so they discover them rather than build them. Also, all weapons do D6 damage, so new players only have to worry about 2 dice types - d20 for attack rolls and D6 for everything else, including weapon damage.
5e:
1. Choose race, subrace and class. Involves reading through at least a brief description of 9 different classes and 8 races.
2. Roll stats. 4d6 drop the lowest. Assign stats to scores (means you have to understand the significance of the different scores) and then add race bonuses on top.
3. Calculate bonuses and penalties to stats. Subtract 10 and divide by 4 to find the bonus. (this confuses a lot of new players).
4. Choose background. This can take a long time, and it can also slow you down if you try not to have overlap in skills and might involve reading tool proficiencies.
5. Choose skills. Again, a lot of options here and players may want to read over what the skills mean. Add numbers to find skill bonus.
6. If you are a magic user, choose spells (usually multiple cantrips and first level spells).
7. Choose equipment from the lists provided. Equipment can vary a lot so you kind of need to look at what different equipment can do. But the list format does streamline it compared to OD&D.
8. Calculate hit points by following the formula given. Record hit dice.
9. Look up AC for your armour type and add dexterity bonus.
10. If feats are being used, choose feats.
11. Calculate attack bonuses and write down attacks.
You could quibble about the steps, but the important point is a 5e character requires way more decisions to be made by the player and has many more rules that impact them that the player needs to understand. There's much more chance for a player to make a "bad" choice and be unhappy. In OD&D the concept of a "build" doesn't exist, because there just aren't really many choices to be made and your character is rolled randomly anyway.
I've found it's much easier to introduce kids to OD&D than 5e, you can be up and running in 5 minutes easily whereas 5e characters can take 30 minutes to make and require much more looking in the PHB.
That said, I would recommend using ascending AC options given in retroclones, because negative AC is a bit more of a hassle for most people - addition is just more intuitive for people than subtraction.
I have never looked at it this way! Thank you for opening my eyes. I always looked at 0 as a way more difficult system, likely due to the fear of dice rolls crippling me. I would however like to point out one key difference. How one progresses. In 5e. You kill a goblin, and get XP, lets say 10. You kill 9 more you Level up! Here is verbatum the manner of how experience works in DND0.
"Experience points are awarded to players by the referee
with appropriate bonuses or penalties for prime requisite scores. As characters
meet monsters in mortal combat and defeat them, and when they obtain various
forms of treasure (money, gems, jewelry, magical items, etc.), they gain “experience.”
This adds to their experience point total, gradually moving them upwards
through the levels. Gains in experience points will be relative; thus an 8th-level
Magic-User operating on the 5th dungeon level would be awarded 5/8 experience.
Let us assume he gains 7,000 Gold Pieces by defeating a troll (which is a
7th-level monster, as it has over 6 hit dice). Had the monster been only a 5th-level
one, experience would be awarded on a 5/8 basis as already stated, but as the
monster guarding the treasure was a 7th-level one, experience would be awarded
on a 7/8 basis thus; 7,000 GP + 700 for killing the troll = 7,700 divided by 8
= 962.5 × 7 = 6,037.5. Experience points are never awarded above a 1 for 1
basis, so even if a character defeats a higher-level monster he will not receive
experience points above the total of treasure combined with the monster’s kill
value. It is also recommended that no more experience points be awarded for any
single adventure than will suffice to move the character upwards one level. Thus
a “veteran” (1st level) gains what would ordinarily be 5,000 experience points;
however, as this would move him upwards two levels, the referee should award
only sufficient points to bring him to “warrior” (2nd level), say 3,999 if the character
began with 0 experience points."
This means that in order to play, past level 1 in DND 0, you have to do fractional mathmematics. You can't just add two numbers together, you have to break out the abacus. Lord help you at the end of the dungeon when you have to split it between 3-5 players, having just dealt with 10-20 traps (Traps were XP back then) and several dozen monsters (Who got the killing blow mattered as well). My brain hurts. You all get 500 XP.
Yeah you know what that is a super fair point. I totally skip all that nonsense and so do a lot of retroclones. The original rules are really badly laid out for comprehension and sort of incomplete, but the game they describe has a lot less moving parts than 5e.
I just do monster + treasure XP in my game, and it works alright. Old school games definitely have a bit of book keeping though - 5e seemed to have moved over entirely to milestone by the end. I actually did milestone (though we didn't call it that) for like my first 15 years roleplaying, and only started to move to other systems later. At the moment I really like gold as XP because it makes XP a player choice in a really clear way.
But milestone is definitely the easiest way and makes a lot of sense for modern style games.
I think Deed based XP growth/leveling is the best idea to come out of modern dnd. It's not how many goblins you kill, its when you kill ALL the goblins that are threatening the town. It's not holding off the Zombies, and the undead giants, and the Yuanti, it's killing the Lich controlling them.
Sure each one of those is a level on the journey, because no one is taking on a lich at level 1-3, but yeah, you don't get a level per month. Even with XP, my group gets a level maybe every 3-4 months.
If there is one thing I would strike from DnD in a new edition, it's the (and I have literally no conceivable way to enact this) "thats what my character would do" RP that so often involves the LG character trying to convert the not lawfully good characters into their personal little clergy. It's gross. Or the Thief stealing from the party. I get RP, but it's meta to ask, in front of the party, if you can attempt to steal from us, then if you succeed, expect us to play along with your fantasy.
Actually, I think rolls against other player characters should be illegal. Even perception/insight. If you can't catch me in a lie, your dice shouldn't be able to save you. If you can't convince me to follow your plan to go attack the goblins, then you shouldn't be able to just roll to force me to go along with the plan.
Same goes with forced will spells. I think enchant person type spells should be heavily restricted. I'm sick of watching the bard "control" the barbarian who can't pass a wisdom save.
Many games expressly have rules that spells, attributes, and abilities can not be used on other PCs. All interactions between characters must be handled between players.
In my games I just have a hard rule that all gold is split among the entire party (including followers who engage in combat) and leave it at that. There is no possibility whatsoever for anyone to steal gold, all gold is split. The slight dip in immersion is well worth it for the removal of drama.
In defense of gold as XP, I think it's a good system because of how much agency it grants players over their progression. The modern version makes progression DM fiat, which I don't have a big issue with, but gold as XP lets players decide which risks they want to take and which they don't. It does work better for a swords and sorcery style game, of course. But I've done enough save-the-world plots and I'm okay with not doing any more.
That said, I think DM Fiat XP in various forms works perfectly well and isn't bad. I'm just moving away from it after many years and exploring other methods out of interest.
Can anyone break down what the actual edition changes are? I was teying to look through rules and about all i noticed was stat requirements for cross classing.
There is too much to sum up, but it's essentially: they've gone back to locking classes behind stats. Fighters/martial classes must have a strength of 13. Rogues/dex classes must have at least dex 13. Wizards/Magic users must have a Wis/Int of at least 14? I think depending on their class. MAD characters like Rangers need a min of 13 in multiple skills like WIS and STR.
They've cut out a lot of the dumb "feats" and tied them directly to race/character background. Like if you are an entertainer, you get Performer. If you are gladiator, you get X feat. I forget the specifics.
Finally, I think they've complete re-done the racial make up system. You are no longer +/- strength or Int for certain races, but it's more like everyone is a Variant Human with a few +1s of your choice, and a racial specific background feat. They've also completely gutted the Race list. There is no longer 50 different races. There is 1 human, 2 dwarves, 2 Elves, 2 Gnome, 2 Halflings, and I think 1 "orc". I don't think "half races exist" but I am likely wrong, I forget. There have been like 4 rule set drops.
Finally, classes: every class only has 2 subclasses so far. I'm betting this is because of the new Online AI TTRPG thing they are pushing.
It's still in test releases, right? The limited subclasses is likely due to being a unfinished beta.
I approve of removing half races. That gak has always been pretty damn weird. Some guys on a podcast I listen to once said they have half orcs, but half orcs are not half breeds. They are orcs raised outside of orcish society. Half orc is a derogatory term from "full orcs". As in you are not even a true orc. You are only half an orc. I liked that.
Otherwise these changes don't sound very revolutionary.
Yeah I never liked the "half-races" thing. It just made everything to biological, and implied that all the races are the same species.
I much prefer a more magical origin for my magical kindreds.
To me one of the biggest issues with 5e and modern D&D generally is the spell design. Spells are the most reliable and predictable mechanics in the entire game. I think that's not really in keeping with the idea of magic as a wondrous, inexplicable force. That's the main thing that keeps me from having any interest.
Anyway, I will retreat from the thread now because I have been derailing, sorry!
Da Boss wrote: Yeah I never liked the "half-races" thing. It just made everything to biological, and implied that all the races are the same species.
I much prefer a more magical origin for my magical kindreds.
To me one of the biggest issues with 5e and modern D&D generally is the spell design. Spells are the most reliable and predictable mechanics in the entire game. I think that's not really in keeping with the idea of magic as a wondrous, inexplicable force. That's the main thing that keeps me from having any interest.
Anyway, I will retreat from the thread now because I have been derailing, sorry!
I mean... that magic thing is really an issue with the class structure. You cannot have a class built entirely around magic (wizard, sorcerer, etc) and then make them unreliable at the one thing they do. There needs to be a separate magic system that anyone can access and characters can specialize in to be better/more reliable without being incapable of the more mundane stuff.
I mean, this won't prevent people walking up to the table with "I rolled this I swear" sheet of all 18s in everything. But still I think it goes a long way towards forcing the majority of players to a more equal base. Powergamers be damned.
I think the "Half races" thing came about back in the days when the monster races were literally designed out of racist character tropes. All orks were big, ugly, dumb, and evil. Same with other monster Races. Half elves came about I think in 2e, because of the racial limitations of Elves. You basically were forced to be a magic user, and could never be any thing else, at least well. Half Elves opened the door to all the classes. But that may be my head canon.
The things that I really love is they brought back things like cleave/great cleave.
But yeah. Everything we've seen so far is BETA, so pending the release, this could all just be washed away and they slap a 6e sticker on the 5e manual and sell it for 90 USD.
Half elves have been around since D&Ds inception.
If anyone will recall, all of DnD is based upon Tolkien’s Middle Earth.
The Dunedain were essentially half elves. Can’t recall the story exactly, but they were born of human and elf parents and one of the Valar gave them the choice to embrace either heritage - human or elf. They chose human and gave up their immortality. Due to such a humble choice, the Valar extended their life spans.
Half races were not based on racist tropes. They were based on the literature the game itself was based on. Later on half orcs were added as in Tolkien, they were corrupted elves, and thus the logic became that if human and elf could have offspring, then so could orcs.
I think this belief in racism being inherent in the game itself is misplaced when you simply look at the literature it was based upon.
Ghool wrote: Half elves have been around since D&Ds inception.
If anyone will recall, all of DnD is based upon Tolkien’s Middle Earth.
The Dunedain were essentially half elves. Can’t recall the story exactly, but they were born of human and elf parents and one of the Valar gave them the choice to embrace either heritage - human or elf. They chose human and gave up their immortality. Due to such a humble choice, the Valar extended their life spans.
Half races were not based on racist tropes. They were based on the literature the game itself was based on. Later on half orcs were added as in Tolkien, they were corrupted elves, and thus the logic became that if human and elf could have offspring, then so could orcs.
I think this belief in racism being inherent in the game itself is misplaced when you simply look at the literature it was based upon.
This isn't really true.
ADnD is based heavily on Tolkien. But the OG DnD was more Howards Conan, Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, and other fantasy (including Tolkien) of the time. It was Chainmail, first and foremost. The miniatures from/for that shaped it's base.
The races in DnD being racial/cultural caricature is accurate. This stuff didn't have deep well thought out backgrounds. They chucked stuff in and based it on superficial knowledge of the time.
I mean, just as an example... there are interviews with the main writers of White Wolf books who look back at the racial stereotype groups in their games from the 90s and apologize saying "We didn't have the internet back then. This is the result of well meaning individuals working on deadlines with limited research potential."
If you think Gygax and co were doing much research AT ALL into the cultures and people they were aping to make a paragraph long description of a monster you are giving them WAY too much credit. Tolkien on the other hand WAS doing that research.
Either way, the half races are not weird because of cultural whatevers. They are weird because it's cross species hybrids that produce fertile offspring. Half elf cool. Half orc cool. Half dwarves in Dark sun. So... half elf/half dwarf ? Half dwarf/half orcs? Why can everything produce kids with dragons? gaks weird no mater how you dress it up if you spend any amount of time thinking about it.
Like the players, I’m sure the designers didn’t think much about it aside from ‘Y’know what would be cool?’
Overthinking what your games mean and represent is not what one is meant to do.
They are games. They are only supposed to be fun and cool. There isn’t much more to it than that, and devoting time and energy ‘trying to figure it out’ is a waste of time.
When folks over analyze what they do for fun, it stops being fun.
When folks over analyze what they do for fun, it stops being fun.
In your opinion. To some, that is where the fun begins! Look at this forum as an example.
I have a feeling that part of D&D (and 40K, and Battletech, and other BIG name games) it that you can spend just as much time talking, thinking, and analyzing the game as you do playing the game. If you can't spend more time talking about the game then playing it, your game will have a short shelf life.
IMHO people need to spend more time playing and less time thinking about it, but not everyone has that luxury.
Ghool wrote: Like the players, I’m sure the designers didn’t think much about it aside from ‘Y’know what would be cool?’
Overthinking what your games mean and represent is not what one is meant to do.
They are games. They are only supposed to be fun and cool. There isn’t much more to it than that, and devoting time and energy ‘trying to figure it out’ is a waste of time.
When folks over analyze what they do for fun, it stops being fun.
Thats a hot take.
Lets rewind this to its basics. A game is a creation. And that creation like any other kind of creation can have as much or as little meaning as its creator wants. There are TTRPGs that are shallow nothings. And there are TTRPGs that are really deep impactdul experiences. Ever hear of white wolfs wraith? Other players play your shadow. Your nagging ever present doubt. And every time you try to do things they whisper all that negative in your ear to rip into your insecurities and tear you down. Pushing you to let go, give up, and fade to nothing.
A difficult game to play well. An almost unparalleled experience if you can manage to get it right. A game that is absolutely thinking about what it means and represents.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah I never liked the "half-races" thing. It just made everything to biological, and implied that all the races are the same species.
I much prefer a more magical origin for my magical kindreds.
To me one of the biggest issues with 5e and modern D&D generally is the spell design. Spells are the most reliable and predictable mechanics in the entire game. I think that's not really in keeping with the idea of magic as a wondrous, inexplicable force. That's the main thing that keeps me from having any interest.
Anyway, I will retreat from the thread now because I have been derailing, sorry!
I mean... that magic thing is really an issue with the class structure. You cannot have a class built entirely around magic (wizard, sorcerer, etc) and then make them unreliable at the one thing they do. There needs to be a separate magic system that anyone can access and characters can specialize in to be better/more reliable without being incapable of the more mundane stuff.
Nah, disagree entirely. All martial classes work based on being unreliable at the one thing they do. They all are stuck dealing with the vagaries of the D20 roll for all of their abilities, pretty much, and only get some re-rolls or "take 10s" as mitigation at pretty high levels.
Magic users on the other hand get a neat package of mechanics that does what it says on the tin directly. Sure, some of them allow saves, but lots of them don't, and this makes magic far more reliable than mundane everyday solutions. That doesn't really fit any fictional conception of magic that I've come across, and makes magic more like an "extended physics" that is quite boring.
DCC goes some way to addressing this, with spell tables that mean that magic users have to roll for their spells and get differing results depending on how high they roll. Spellcasters are still probably advantaged in DCC but I think the mechanics better show the flavour of magic as it is presented in pulp adventure fiction in that game.
I think that's why spellcasters are so popular in D&D, they are a sure bet. And when you want to fix a class, giving it spells seems to be the go to, because most of the games actual design is in spell design. Design for martial combat by comparison is tiny.
Da Boss wrote: All martial classes work based on being unreliable at the one thing they do. They all are stuck dealing with the vagaries of the D20 roll for all of their abilities, pretty much, and only get some re-rolls or "take 10s" as mitigation at pretty high levels.
Magic users on the other hand get a neat package of mechanics that does what it says on the tin directly. Sure, some of them allow saves, but lots of them don't, and this makes magic far more reliable than mundane everyday solutions.
Okay. I agree with this. The argument of course would be that "martials" can do their thing infinitely and "casters" have limited resources and so the casters need some additional reliability built into their limited resource tricks.
I don't AGREE with that. But that would be the reasoning behind the mechanics. Especially because in practice that limited resource isn't all that limited.
That doesn't really fit any fictional conception of magic that I've come across,
It's magic. The fluff of the magic doesn't matter. The mechanics of the game does.
I think that's why spellcasters are so popular in D&D, they are a sure bet. And when you want to fix a class, giving it spells seems to be the go to, because most of the games actual design is in spell design. Design for martial combat by comparison is tiny.
I think there is a little more to it then that. Spell casters have dnds biggest design flaw in that if there is a problem there is a spell that solves that problem. Locked door? Knock. Need to secure a thing? Magical locks and alarms. Need to be sneaky? Silence and invisibility. Climb, spider climb. Too wide a gap? Leap or levitation or flight.
Magic isn't just reliable. It's a swiss army knife of solving every single problem you could ever run into.
What magic is even capable of needs to be more limited in scope.
I miss 2nd editions clerical spheres. Depending on the deity, you had major (all levels) or minor (1-3 levels) access to spells that fit the sphere (or domain). If you didn't follow the god of healing you didn't get high level healing magic. If you followed the god of fire, you got more fire magic.
Not just 'you get all divine spells ever,' in the edition where supplement books had lists of more & more spells (with a series that was just spells)
I always liked that idea for wizards & sorcerers as well. Suck it up and walk the Path of Storms, or deal only with the School of Conjuration.
Make spellcasters be about something, not just batman with endless utility belts.
Isn't 6E just going to be 5E but more online elements and less physical books? Thought they were calling it DnD Next, but I've been pretty out of the loop for the last couple months.
6e, or 5.5e is going to be a subscription based mostly online edition yes. By all accounts we're hearing. Keep in mind, that is because the new director they hired feels its bad business that only 1 person has to buy the books, and micro transactions are not being well monetized in the current scheme.
So yeah, you pay for the right to play on their server, much like you would pay to play WoW. You can't Pirate WoW easily, and I'm expecting this will be the same. Except that Wow is a literal PAAS, and this is a SAAS. All youre getting here is access to the AIDM and the rules. Which will be leaked day 1. Then after the Yo ho ho ship has sailed, someone will 3rd party it, unless they completely change the OGL, Again.
Ahtman wrote: Isn't 6E just going to be 5E but more online elements and less physical books? Thought they were calling it DnD Next, but I've been pretty out of the loop for the last couple months.
Its a revision with emphasis on backwards compatibility, yes (though some classes and races are getting a fair number of changes, and stat bonuses are, at least in the playtest tied to background, not race. The 'backwards compatibility' is that you can use the old versions if you want to, and your group just has to deal with the headaches and imbalances that causes). They're going to be pushing the online stuff, but there will also still be books. If you're book person you'll likely not notice anything different in the sales model. You might see some nonsense of trial versions of new stuff being sold individually in 'D&D Beyond,' and then they'll turn up in a book a year later (which the D&D Beyond folks will be expected to also buy or maintain a subscription for all that time)
Fezzik isn't a good source for what's going on with D&D. Most of his initial claims in the OP (like its coming out this month) are simply false.
I'm going to stick with what I and my playgroup already play, which is predominately 3.5. I'm not too fond of digital books or maps or any of the other online stuff that's involves with oneD&D. I didn't entirely hate 5th edition, but I'm not sold on this.
I ran a 4e campaign recently. I like a lot of the "base setting" of the game, but running it again even with some fixes like only using later monsters, reducing monster HP and upping monster damage a bit, it still drags on a bit too much in battles.
That said, we had a lot of fun playing it. I think some of the criticisms are overblown, but it's still too much time invested in combat for the style of game I like to run (more exploration focused).
5e has similar problems to be fair. I like 5e a bit more than 4e or 3e but it's got it's downsides too.
But as to the popularity of D&D, for sure it's brand name recognition and first mover advantage, but I also think the basic structure of the game is really solid.
You've got a default goal (get treasure), a default challenge (fight monsters) and a default scenario (exploring a dungeon). It's pretty easy for a beginner DM to make a dungeon and stock it with monsters and treasure, and it's a pretty fun play experience.
Doing something like a mystery plot is much harder on the DM, so games like Call of Cthulhu have a much steeper learning curve for DMs.
Given that most people that play are gonna dabble, having a pretty straightforward default mode of play is really useful for allowing the dabblers in.
I actually think modern D&D is much too clunky for new people though, as we discussed earlier in the thread. But the core gameplay structure is really robust and straightforward. I think that's key to it's success compared to other early games like Traveller or Call of Cthulhu.
I don't want to soap box, but one of my biggest gripes about each new edition is how dumbed down it is. Reflex and Will Saves. It used to mean, if you could see an event happening I.E. you knew the trap door had sprung and a heavy rock was falling down above you, you could "reflexively avoid it. If you were unaware, you couldnt. Will saves, allowed you, by sheer determination, to roleplay NOT being affected by a spell. Now literally everything is a Dex save, or a Wisdom save. No reasoning, no extra tidbits, but if you spring a trap in 5E, you get to roll a dex save. That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.
I mean, that's just one example. but it's my best point. I liked how I could really chew the roleplay of 2nd, it was kinda built for it. 5th is built for kids to slay dragons.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I don't want to soap box, but one of my biggest gripes about each new edition is how dumbed down it is. Reflex and Will Saves. It used to mean, if you could see an event happening I.E. you knew the trap door had sprung and a heavy rock was falling down above you, you could "reflexively avoid it. If you were unaware, you couldnt. Will saves, allowed you, by sheer determination, to roleplay NOT being affected by a spell. Now literally everything is a Dex save, or a Wisdom save. No reasoning, no extra tidbits, but if you spring a trap in 5E, you get to roll a dex save. That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.
I mean, that's just one example. but it's my best point. I liked how I could really chew the roleplay of 2nd, it was kinda built for it. 5th is built for kids to slay dragons.
3.5 lets you roll reflex saves against things you don't see coming.
And if you prefer older editions... Play them. They didn't disappear when later ones came out.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I don't want to soap box, but one of my biggest gripes about each new edition is how dumbed down it is. Reflex and Will Saves. It used to mean, if you could see an event happening I.E. you knew the trap door had sprung and a heavy rock was falling down above you, you could "reflexively avoid it. If you were unaware, you couldnt. Will saves, allowed you, by sheer determination, to roleplay NOT being affected by a spell. Now literally everything is a Dex save, or a Wisdom save. No reasoning, no extra tidbits, but if you spring a trap in 5E, you get to roll a dex save. That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.
I mean, that's just one example. but it's my best point. I liked how I could really chew the roleplay of 2nd, it was kinda built for it. 5th is built for kids to slay dragons.
3.5 lets you roll reflex saves against things you don't see coming.
And if you prefer older editions... Play them. They didn't disappear when later ones came out.
Have you tried lately getting people to step out of 5th, and into a much more complicated/difficult version of DND? One without apps, or a website designed to do everything for you? All the math, record keeping, spell slots, currency, XP, etc? Yeah. I the 45th Cheeto of the US couldn't convince 5 people to willingly leave 5th and go into 3.5. It's too late. There used to be apps and stuff, but they all died off the app store.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.
Unless said Wizard has pumped their Dexterity and invested in a way to get proficiency in Dexterity Saving Throws like the Ranger/Rogue has by default, they don't have as much of a chance at all.
And if someone wants to play a particularly dexterous and alert Wizard, why shouldn't they?
Yeah, I have tried to get folks into other games and the electronic component of 5E is definitely a "Golden Handcuff" that keeps people from switching to other systems.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.
Unless said Wizard has pumped their Dexterity and invested in a way to get proficiency in Dexterity Saving Throws like the Ranger/Rogue has by default, they don't have as much of a chance at all.
And if someone wants to play a particularly dexterous and alert Wizard, why shouldn't they?
Right, but skipping past all the inevitable whataboutisms, I'm talking about 90% of actually rolled wizards, that don't have enough extra 18s laying around to waste on stuff like Dex. You need INT, CON, and maybe WIS, dex is whatever's left over. Anything over 10 if you have it. YMMV but I've never seen wizards rocking high stats in much other than INT/CON. And yes, with D4HP, your CON is WAY more important than DEX.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.
Unless said Wizard has pumped their Dexterity and invested in a way to get proficiency in Dexterity Saving Throws like the Ranger/Rogue has by default, they don't have as much of a chance at all.
And if someone wants to play a particularly dexterous and alert Wizard, why shouldn't they?
Right, but skipping past all the inevitable whataboutisms, I'm talking about 90% of actually rolled wizards, that don't have enough extra 18s laying around to waste on stuff like Dex. You need INT, CON, and maybe WIS, dex is whatever's left over. Anything over 10 if you have it. YMMV but I've never seen wizards rocking high stats in much other than INT/CON. And yes, with D4HP, your CON is WAY more important than DEX.
Wisdom isn't really needed for Wizards in 5E. You have native save proficiency in there.
Wisdom isn't really needed for Wizards in 3.5. You have a good Will save, and plenty of spells to help mitigate a low(ish) Wisdom score.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: That's BS. There is no reason the oblivious wizard should have as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue.
Unless said Wizard has pumped their Dexterity and invested in a way to get proficiency in Dexterity Saving Throws like the Ranger/Rogue has by default, they don't have as much of a chance at all.
And if someone wants to play a particularly dexterous and alert Wizard, why shouldn't they?
Right, but skipping past all the inevitable whataboutisms, I'm talking about 90% of actually rolled wizards, that don't have enough extra 18s laying around to waste on stuff like Dex. You need INT, CON, and maybe WIS, dex is whatever's left over. Anything over 10 if you have it. YMMV but I've never seen wizards rocking high stats in much other than INT/CON. And yes, with D4HP, your CON is WAY more important than DEX.
Exactly
So why were you complaining about Wizards having "as much of a chance of avoiding the explosion, than the alert and wary Ranger/Rogue"?
I'm sorry, but I can't tell if you've been legitimately reading, and are confused, or what, but I'm arguing that a wizard should NOT be as able and ready to dodge a trap as a rogue.
Because the entire idea behind the Rogue is that the class is CONSTANTLY on alert, and aware of traps. Built for extremely quick reactions and dexterous movements to avoid damage.
I'm not trying to be insulting, because I may have mistated my side here, so in fairness, here it goes Again.
5E dumbed down every D&D mechanic to SUCH and extent that there is little or no actual difference in the classes. For most of the game, a Rogue and a Wizard will have roughly the same chance of dodging the fireball. It did not always happen this way. 1 fireball used to mean the Wizard was rolling a new character.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm sorry, but I can't tell if you've been legitimately reading, and are confused, or what, but I'm arguing that a wizard should NOT be as able and ready to dodge a trap as a rogue.
Because the entire idea behind the Rogue is that the class is CONSTANTLY on alert, and aware of traps. Built for extremely quick reactions and dexterous movements to avoid damage.
I'm not trying to be insulting, because I may have mistated my side here, so in fairness, here it goes Again.
5E dumbed down every D&D mechanic to SUCH and extent that there is little or no actual difference in the classes. For most of the game, a Rogue and a Wizard will have roughly the same chance of dodging the fireball. It did not always happen this way. 1 fireball used to mean the Wizard was rolling a new character.
A level seven Rogue has Evasion-so if both they and the Wizard fail the save, the Rogue takes half the damage the Wizard does. If they both pass, the Rogue takes no damage while the Wizard still takes some.
The Rogue will likely have a higher Dexterity score, meaning they are more likely to pass. They also have proficiency in Dexterity saves, unlike the Wizard by default, so they're even MORE likely to pass the save.
Can a Wizard take Resilient (Dexterity) and have a Dexterity equal to that of an equal-level Rogue? Yes. But if they do that, they invested significant resources towards being better at handling these dangers. And EVEN THEN, the Rogue takes less damage from level seven onwards.
And do you really think a Rogue and Wizard have no actual differences in 5th Edition?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm sorry, but I can't tell if you've been legitimately reading, and are confused, or what, but I'm arguing that a wizard should NOT be as able and ready to dodge a trap as a rogue.
Because the entire idea behind the Rogue is that the class is CONSTANTLY on alert, and aware of traps. Built for extremely quick reactions and dexterous movements to avoid damage.
I'm not trying to be insulting, because I may have mistated my side here, so in fairness, here it goes Again.
5E dumbed down every D&D mechanic to SUCH and extent that there is little or no actual difference in the classes. For most of the game, a Rogue and a Wizard will have roughly the same chance of dodging the fireball. It did not always happen this way. 1 fireball used to mean the Wizard was rolling a new character.
A level seven Rogue has Evasion-so if both they and the Wizard fail the save, the Rogue takes half the damage the Wizard does. If they both pass, the Rogue takes no damage while the Wizard still takes some.
The Rogue will likely have a higher Dexterity score, meaning they are more likely to pass. They also have proficiency in Dexterity saves, unlike the Wizard by default, so they're even MORE likely to pass the save.
Can a Wizard take Resilient (Dexterity) and have a Dexterity equal to that of an equal-level Rogue? Yes. But if they do that, they invested significant resources towards being better at handling these dangers. And EVEN THEN, the Rogue takes less damage from level seven onwards.
And do you really think a Rogue and Wizard have no actual differences in 5th Edition?
They obviously have differences at level 1-20. My point was, at low levels, there is no difference between the classes. Thematically the 10 dex wizard shouldn't be able to out-roll/out perform a 18 dex Rogue. 5th made stats basically irrelevant. You didn't used to get a roll if you didn't have a certain Stat cut off. You just auto-failed.
They obviously have differences at level 1-20. My point was, at low levels, there is no difference between the classes. Thematically the 10 dex wizard shouldn't be able to out-roll/out perform a 18 dex Rogue. 5th made stats basically irrelevant. You didn't used to get a roll if you didn't have a certain Stat cut off. You just auto-failed.
Are you trying to argue that that is a good thing?
It's a game. Game play is a series of interesting choices. The game happens when the players are making those choices and doing things. Now, I am not saying making saving rolls is a choice or a good mechanic, but getting a chance to react even if it's a forced reaction is better than just being told you paid the health tax for walking into the hallway.
Auto fails are a bad mechanic and it is a good thing that the game has moved away from it. If only the game would move away from the rest of it's archaic bs as well.
Some people really enjoy Dark Souls, or Demon Souls, or any of those games. Some people really enjoy Madden 95, or Excitebike. Some people think Excite Bike is waaaay more difficult than Dark Souls. Point is, different strokes for different folks. I grew up on 2nd, and then went hard into 3.5. I'm dancing with the one who brought me.
I did not say 5th was bad, I merely said I prefer the older, more difficult versions. I think it's also part of the reason it's impossible to pull this generation of players AWAY from 5th. Because they started with it, and love it. For the same exact reasons I love 2nd, and 3.5. They aren't wrong, but the assertion of "Go play what you like" is vacuous, because it's kinda impossible these days. I might as well say I wish more cars were built from the factory with Standard Transitions. It's a wish that is kinda impossible to fill, no matter how much I prefer it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Some people really enjoy Dark Souls, or Demon Souls, or any of those games. Some people really enjoy Madden 95, or Excitebike. Some people think Excite Bike is waaaay more difficult than Dark Souls. Point is, different strokes for different folks. I grew up on 2nd, and then went hard into 3.5. I'm dancing with the one who brought me.
I did not say 5th was bad, I merely said I prefer the older, more difficult versions. I think it's also part of the reason it's impossible to pull this generation of players AWAY from 5th. Because they started with it, and love it. For the same exact reasons I love 2nd, and 3.5. They aren't wrong, but the assertion of "Go play what you like" is vacuous, because it's kinda impossible these days. I might as well say I wish more cars were built from the factory with Standard Transitions. It's a wish that is kinda impossible to fill, no matter how much I prefer it.
Different strokes for different folks, sure. Like what you like. Like it to whatever extent you like it. Even if it's terrible. No wrong fun.
I AM saying dnd is bad. 5th and 2nd. Sometimes for the same reason. Sometimes for different reasons.
Wanting a difficult game with actual danger and risk and such isn't a problem. Those games do exist. But game design facts are facts. An action in which a player is given no choices and simply consequences isn't good design. You liking that bad thing is all well and good. But you liking it also doesn't make it good.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Some people really enjoy Dark Souls, or Demon Souls, or any of those games. Some people really enjoy Madden 95, or Excitebike. Some people think Excite Bike is waaaay more difficult than Dark Souls. Point is, different strokes for different folks. I grew up on 2nd, and then went hard into 3.5. I'm dancing with the one who brought me.
I did not say 5th was bad, I merely said I prefer the older, more difficult versions. I think it's also part of the reason it's impossible to pull this generation of players AWAY from 5th. Because they started with it, and love it. For the same exact reasons I love 2nd, and 3.5. They aren't wrong, but the assertion of "Go play what you like" is vacuous, because it's kinda impossible these days. I might as well say I wish more cars were built from the factory with Standard Transitions. It's a wish that is kinda impossible to fill, no matter how much I prefer it.
Different strokes for different folks, sure. Like what you like. Like it to whatever extent you like it. Even if it's terrible. No wrong fun.
I AM saying dnd is bad. 5th and 2nd. Sometimes for the same reason. Sometimes for different reasons.
Wanting a difficult game with actual danger and risk and such isn't a problem. Those games do exist. But game design facts are facts. An action in which a player is given no choices and simply consequences isn't good design. You liking that bad thing is all well and good. But you liking it also doesn't make it good.
Just because you state a subjective statement as a fact doesn't make it such. You don't like the original game design, great. Not going to argue with you on that.
Where I will argue is player choice. The player's choice was walking into the room without the thief, or man who checks for traps. They chose to enter the dungeon of the mad Mage, or Acerak the Great undead Arch Lich. They Chose to enter the lair of the hydra. Saying the game robbed them of choice is like saying I was robbed of chose when I became fat after eating too much ice cream. They chose to take part in an extremely dangerous adventure. They chose to play a wizard. They chose to not look for traps in the lair of the BBEG. How many passes does the player get before it's their fault?
Just because you state a subjective statement as a fact doesn't make it such. You don't like the original game design, great. Not going to argue with you on that.
Where I will argue is player choice. The player's choice was walking into the room without the thief, or man who checks for traps.They chose to enter the dungeon of the mad Mage, or Acerak the Great undead Arch Lich. They Chose to enter the lair of the hydra.
Sure. And the player decided to sit down at that table and play that game. Those broad stroke choices are not what we are talking about. We are talking about the idea that the circumstances of the game reach what can and should be a decision point. That game play takes place at these decision points. That isn't my opinion. Thats fact. Definition: Game Play: A series of interesting choices. In Tetris when your next pieces comes down you choose where to place it, in what orientation, and all you know is what piece comes next. Those choices matter and shape the game play experience. And you are constantly bombarded with decision points which make for an engaging game.
In your preferred DnD the player just gets fethed. No choice. And not even the chance of a roll. Where is the game play? Where is the interesting choices? The game can, and should, give players chances to make decisions about how their character react and attempt to do things. That doesn't mean they should always succeed or that there shouldn't be consequences for failure. It simply means that the player should get to PLAY by making the decisions that encompass Game Play.
Facts is Facts. Bad design is bad design. It's okay that a game that is fething 40+ years old is bad. It was designed 4 decades ago. We SHOULD have learned to make better things in that time.
Saying the game robbed them of choice is like saying I was robbed of chose when I became fat after eating too much ice cream. They chose to take part in an extremely dangerous adventure. They chose to play a wizard. They chose to not look for traps in the lair of the BBEG. How many passes does the player get before it's their fault?
This isn't a question of fault. And this isn't a question of passes. The game can have game play or it can be designed to not. The situation you describe is a game designed to not have game play. That's bad game design. More Game Play is better than less Game Play. Look at what I said above. So by your estimation the choice is play the game and go in the dangerous dungeon or don't. And if you go in... woops... you're dead. You chose wrong. So that decision is fething stupid and why would anyone play that? You know what it reminds me of? Those choose your own adventure books where you turn to page 6 and find out you died. Great. Real good time. Lots of fun.
I wonder why you are having trouble finding people to play with you.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm sorry, but I can't tell if you've been legitimately reading, and are confused, or what, but I'm arguing that a wizard should NOT be as able and ready to dodge a trap as a rogue.
Because the entire idea behind the Rogue is that the class is CONSTANTLY on alert, and aware of traps. Built for extremely quick reactions and dexterous movements to avoid damage.
I'm not trying to be insulting, because I may have mistated my side here, so in fairness, here it goes Again.
5E dumbed down every D&D mechanic to SUCH and extent that there is little or no actual difference in the classes. For most of the game, a Rogue and a Wizard will have roughly the same chance of dodging the fireball. It did not always happen this way. 1 fireball used to mean the Wizard was rolling a new character.
A level seven Rogue has Evasion-so if both they and the Wizard fail the save, the Rogue takes half the damage the Wizard does. If they both pass, the Rogue takes no damage while the Wizard still takes some.
The Rogue will likely have a higher Dexterity score, meaning they are more likely to pass. They also have proficiency in Dexterity saves, unlike the Wizard by default, so they're even MORE likely to pass the save.
Can a Wizard take Resilient (Dexterity) and have a Dexterity equal to that of an equal-level Rogue? Yes. But if they do that, they invested significant resources towards being better at handling these dangers. And EVEN THEN, the Rogue takes less damage from level seven onwards.
And do you really think a Rogue and Wizard have no actual differences in 5th Edition?
They obviously have differences at level 1-20. My point was, at low levels, there is no difference between the classes. Thematically the 10 dex wizard shouldn't be able to out-roll/out perform a 18 dex Rogue. 5th made stats basically irrelevant. You didn't used to get a roll if you didn't have a certain Stat cut off. You just auto-failed.
That 18 dex Rogue has a +6 to their Dex saves as opposed to the Wizard's astounding +0
Thematically, most of the time, that Rogue is outperforming the Wizard.
That said though, a more typical low-level scenario would be a 17 Dex Rogue and a 14 Dex Wizard (so +5 vs + 2) which is more in your arguement's favour... but at those low levels you shouldn't be getting many (if any) actually difficult Dex saving throws anyway, and in things the Rogue is 5th edition is more intended to do (which can include sneaking around, picking locks, and disabling traps) they do far better.
In 5th edition a low-level Rogue won't matrix-dodge the trap hidden in the chest, but their class is built far better than the Wizard to be able to notice and disable it. Should you so choose to, anyway, because at the end of the day the 5th Edition Rogue isn't defined as just "that sneaky bugger that does skulduggery" but rather as "a man or woman of many mundane skills, and an expert at what they know" even if the Dexterity-focus of the class does push them toward the "sneaky and skulduggery" way.
Just because you state a subjective statement as a fact doesn't make it such. You don't like the original game design, great. Not going to argue with you on that.
Where I will argue is player choice. The player's choice was walking into the room without the thief, or man who checks for traps.They chose to enter the dungeon of the mad Mage, or Acerak the Great undead Arch Lich. They Chose to enter the lair of the hydra.
Sure. And the player decided to sit down at that table and play that game. Those broad stroke choices are not what we are talking about. We are talking about the idea that the circumstances of the game reach what can and should be a decision point. That game play takes place at these decision points. That isn't my opinion. Thats fact. Definition: Game Play: A series of interesting choices. In Tetris when your next pieces comes down you choose where to place it, in what orientation, and all you know is what piece comes next. Those choices matter and shape the game play experience. And you are constantly bombarded with decision points which make for an engaging game.
In your preferred DnD the player just gets fethed. No choice. And not even the chance of a roll. Where is the game play? Where is the interesting choices? The game can, and should, give players chances to make decisions about how their character react and attempt to do things. That doesn't mean they should always succeed or that there shouldn't be consequences for failure. It simply means that the player should get to PLAY by making the decisions that encompass Game Play.
Facts is Facts. Bad design is bad design. It's okay that a game that is fething 40+ years old is bad. It was designed 4 decades ago. We SHOULD have learned to make better things in that time.
Saying the game robbed them of choice is like saying I was robbed of chose when I became fat after eating too much ice cream. They chose to take part in an extremely dangerous adventure. They chose to play a wizard. They chose to not look for traps in the lair of the BBEG. How many passes does the player get before it's their fault?
This isn't a question of fault. And this isn't a question of passes. The game can have game play or it can be designed to not. The situation you describe is a game designed to not have game play. That's bad game design. More Game Play is better than less Game Play. Look at what I said above. So by your estimation the choice is play the game and go in the dangerous dungeon or don't. And if you go in... woops... you're dead. You chose wrong. So that decision is fething stupid and why would anyone play that? You know what it reminds me of? Those choose your own adventure books where you turn to page 6 and find out you died. Great. Real good time. Lots of fun.
I wonder why you are having trouble finding people to play with you.
You're telling me the forest is on fire, and I'm telling you we're in a desert. We're talking waaaay past each other. I for my part apologize.
Here is the thing about OLD dnD that is really not part of the game anymore. Followers. You used to need to rent/hire/enslave people to do all the super dangerous stuff, and then make charisma checks AFTER said incident to ensure they don't bolt and run. Also, Gygax never promised you an enjoyable adventure. He promised you a CHANCE at fame and fortune, if you just undertake the adventures. Take a look at the old campaigns. He literally designed the game to kill the players, in a SERIOUSLY jerk way. There is a dark hole, you can tell it's a tunnel. With good perception, you can just make out something shiny in the back of the tunnel. Anyone who went in was instantly killed by the sheer fact that it was a portal to a realm of anti-matter. Not a tunnel, just a black portal. The CONSTANT memes about Mimics and checking for traps, are because the game was a SUPER jerk to players. It wasn't enough to just deny them a roll, you had to do it in an extremely abrupt and crushing way that was almost comical at times. But that's also why we have another DnD meme today, about pre-rolled characters all setup and ready to pop in. Wizard's dead? Thankfully his Apprentice Lucky was right behind him, with the exact same spells, stats, and everything. Again, a lot of people thought this was a dumb way to play. Maybe it was. But I'll tell you this, killing the Arch Lich Acerak in 5th is stupid easy, whereas in 2nd, if you did it, there were REAL CASH MONEY prizes involved.
Here is the thing about OLD dnD that is really not part of the game anymore. Followers. You used to need to rent/hire/enslave people to do all the super dangerous stuff, and then make charisma checks AFTER said incident to ensure they don't bolt and run. Also, Gygax never promised you an enjoyable adventure. He promised you a CHANCE at fame and fortune, if you just undertake the adventures. Take a look at the old campaigns. He literally designed the game to kill the players, in a SERIOUSLY jerk way. There is a dark hole, you can tell it's a tunnel. With good perception, you can just make out something shiny in the back of the tunnel. Anyone who went in was instantly killed by the sheer fact that it was a portal to a realm of anti-matter. Not a tunnel, just a black portal. The CONSTANT memes about Mimics and checking for traps, are because the game was a SUPER jerk to players. It wasn't enough to just deny them a roll, you had to do it in an extremely abrupt and crushing way that was almost comical at times.
Yes, and this is regularly cited as the root cause of a lot of the GM versus Players mentality and how the game breaks down into an antagonistic back and forth between people at the table. The GM doing their best to smite any player that steps out of line and the players doing their best to cheat or trick their way around the GM because feth that guy. It resulted in decades of miserable game play and trained a ton of bad GMs. The old DMGs are full of some of the worst GM advice you could possible put to paper. There are games that do a similar kind of meat grinder style game play. Paranoia being one. And those games don't make the GM into an enemy of the table by creating and encouraging bs Tucker's Kobolds style nonsense for players to fail to wade through. Instead it crafts an actual game play experience around it. But again, the players actually get to play. It's still hyper lethal. It's still got traps and tricks and nonsense the players can fall for. But the players have far more agency in the individual actions. It's a better GAME.
The meat grinder you're looking for can exist without the horrible mechanics.
Here is the thing about OLD dnD that is really not part of the game anymore. Followers. You used to need to rent/hire/enslave people to do all the super dangerous stuff, and then make charisma checks AFTER said incident to ensure they don't bolt and run. Also, Gygax never promised you an enjoyable adventure. He promised you a CHANCE at fame and fortune, if you just undertake the adventures. Take a look at the old campaigns. He literally designed the game to kill the players, in a SERIOUSLY jerk way. There is a dark hole, you can tell it's a tunnel. With good perception, you can just make out something shiny in the back of the tunnel. Anyone who went in was instantly killed by the sheer fact that it was a portal to a realm of anti-matter. Not a tunnel, just a black portal. The CONSTANT memes about Mimics and checking for traps, are because the game was a SUPER jerk to players. It wasn't enough to just deny them a roll, you had to do it in an extremely abrupt and crushing way that was almost comical at times.
Yes, and this is regularly cited as the root cause of a lot of the GM versus Players mentality and how the game breaks down into an antagonistic back and forth between people at the table. The GM doing their best to smite any player that steps out of line and the players doing their best to cheat or trick their way around the GM because feth that guy. It resulted in decades of miserable game play and trained a ton of bad GMs. The old DMGs are full of some of the worst GM advice you could possible put to paper. There are games that do a similar kind of meat grinder style game play. Paranoia being one. And those games don't make the GM into an enemy of the table by creating and encouraging bs Tucker's Kobolds style nonsense for players to fail to wade through. Instead it crafts an actual game play experience around it. But again, the players actually get to play. It's still hyper lethal. It's still got traps and tricks and nonsense the players can fall for. But the players have far more agency in the individual actions. It's a better GAME.
The meat grinder you're looking for can exist without the horrible mechanics.
Honest question: Do you believe a GM should ever lie? Fudge dice rolls? Avoid double tapping the downed healer? Because that's all the "learned behavior" I've gained from 5th. If I want to be "allowed" the honor of being the DM of a group of players these days, I have to break my back to avoid them killing themselves. I have to create the world, the fights, the lore, manage the encounters, and meanwhile play baby sitter and make sure they don't accidently die after charging into a group of Dire Trolls because they didn't want to stop and make a nature check and tell, these aren't just TROLLS.
This is the exact result of making everything simple and just handing it to the player. They just don't care about the entire list of skills anymore. If they can't just ask the DM "Can I roll to tell what type of troll it is?" it's too complicated. "Can I roll to X?" has to be the most dumb question I hear more often. Tell me what you want to do, and at least try and include a relevant skill name in the question.
Thats about when I get - "Can I arcana to learn what type of trolls these are?" No. No you may not. You may Nature.....you know what? They're dire trolls. You can tell they're dire Trolls. What do you want to do now? Oh you're attacking? Got it.
Honest question: Do you believe a GM should ever lie?
Lie how? Like should an NPC lie to the players? Yes. Should a GM purposefully falsify information that the PCs should have? No.
Fudge dice rolls?
Absolutely not. You all agreed to play this game when you sat down and starting playing. Every person at that table should be following the rules. The GM is also a player. A asymetrical player, but a player none the less. The PCs are expected to follow the rules. The GM is also expected to follow those rules.
Avoid double tapping the downed healer?
The GM have NPCs behave the way NPCs would behave.
Because that's all the "learned behavior" I've gained from 5th.
I am going to reiterate something I said before. 5th is also a bad game. All dnd is a bad game.
If I want to be "allowed" the honor of being the DM of a group of players these days, I have to break my back to avoid them killing themselves. I have to create the world, the fights, the lore, manage the encounters, and meanwhile play baby sitter and make sure they don't accidently die after charging into a group of Dire Trolls because they didn't want to stop and make a nature check and tell, these aren't just TROLLS.
Don't do that? Let them suffer the consequences of their actions. That is part of the game.
This is the exact result of making everything simple and just handing it to the player. They just don't care about the entire list of skills anymore. If they can't just ask the DM "Can I roll to tell what type of troll it is?" it's too complicated. "Can I roll to X?" has to be the most dumb question I hear more often. Tell me what you want to do, and at least try and include a relevant skill name in the question.
Do a session zero. Set the expectation for your table. Have your first session be a introduction into the way the game works.
Thats about when I get - "Can I arcana to learn what type of trolls these are?" No. No you may not. You may Nature.....you know what? They're dire trolls. You can tell they're dire Trolls. What do you want to do now? Oh you're attacking? Got it.
Dnd like most RPGs has explicit permission for the GM to fiddle with the rules and outcomes to ensure a better experience, so fudging dice IS following the rules.
And not everyone agrees to play the same kind of game style you do, so assuming that every group must have agreed to play exactly to the letter of the rules no fudging, is fallacious reasoning.
Hellebore wrote: Dnd like most RPGs has explicit permission for the GM to fiddle with the rules and outcomes to ensure a better experience, so fudging dice IS following the rules.
And not everyone agrees to play the same kind of game style you do, so assuming that every group must have agreed to play exactly to the letter of the rules no fudging, is fallacious reasoning.
Most players don't read the gmg. They read the players handbook as the rules. How many conversations as or with a GM have you had where they flat out told you they would be fudging dice rolls to create the experience they thought was best for the group? Is it none? Then the group didn't agree to play by those rules. The GM just decided to do them.
I have always used a single rule. The players must enjoy their experience. If that means the Hill Giant accidentally rolled a crit fail when attacking the paladin, oops. But I don't spare them repercussions for their actions.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I have always used a single rule. The players must enjoy their experience. If that means the Hill Giant accidentally rolled a crit fail when attacking the paladin, oops. But I don't spare them repercussions for their actions.
The thing is a TTRPG anounts to a board game with a different goal. Your group gets together to play a game that has rules with the goal of a collaborative story telling experience. When you unilaterally decide that you know best what makes for the best time/story and decide to change the rules without the others knowledge or consent thats pretty fethed up.
Gygax's old DMGs would have down right encouraged you to do this btw. His poison terrible advice places the GM over everyone else at the table. But thats a false dichotomy. You are a player just like them contributing asymmetrically but equally to the story. You cover more roles in the story but they take center stage.
If you honestly think it's okay for you to fudge the rolls and take control then tell them and see how they feel about it. If they consent, cool. Your table is all on the same page. But if they don't know or don't agree you might as well be cheating at any other board game.
Hellebore wrote: Dnd like most RPGs has explicit permission for the GM to fiddle with the rules and outcomes to ensure a better experience, so fudging dice IS following the rules.
And not everyone agrees to play the same kind of game style you do, so assuming that every group must have agreed to play exactly to the letter of the rules no fudging, is fallacious reasoning.
Most players don't read the gmg. They read the players handbook as the rules. How many conversations as or with a GM have you had where they flat out told you they would be fudging dice rolls to create the experience they thought was best for the group? Is it none? Then the group didn't agree to play by those rules. The GM just decided to do them.
All you're doing is describing how limited your experience with RPGs and the people that play them is.
Your description of GMs makes them sound like they stand apart from players. My current DnD group is made up of 7 people, 6 of whom have themselves GMed at least one RPG (DnD or otherwise). I've played plenty of games across a range of systems where the initial discussions about how the game would play were had.
FezzikDaBullgryn
wrote: I have always used a single rule. The players must enjoy their experience. If that means the Hill Giant accidentally rolled a crit fail when attacking the paladin, oops. But I don't spare them repercussions for their actions.
The thing is a TTRPG anounts to a board game with a different goal. Your group gets together to play a game that has rules with the goal of a collaborative story telling experience. When you unilaterally decide that you know best what makes for the best time/story and decide to change the rules without the others knowledge or consent thats pretty fethed up.
Gygax's old DMGs would have down right encouraged you to do this btw. His poison terrible advice places the GM over everyone else at the table. But thats a false dichotomy. You are a player just like them contributing asymmetrically but equally to the story. You cover more roles in the story but they take center stage.
If you honestly think it's okay for you to fudge the rolls and take control then tell them and see how they feel about it. If they consent, cool. Your table is all on the same page. But if they don't know or don't agree you might as well be cheating at any other board game.
You have a very narrow definition of an RPG and there are THOUSANDS of RPGS that are not designed to conform to your definition.
There are diceless RPGs where the outcome is determined by discussion. There are GMless RPGs where the group collectively decide how the plot will unfold.
DnD 4th edition is not the sole definition of a roleplaying game and is in fact the exception.
All I'm hearing is 'I have a very narrow definition of what an RPG is and how to correctly play one'. This restrictive mindset is one of the many reasons I don't like DnD, it encourages people to blinker themselves and only do what's spoon fed to them by the game...
All you're doing is describing how limited your experience with RPGs and the people that play them is.
My experience is I have been playing/running them for almost 3 decades, have written 2 of my own. Own every edition of Mage, along with a smattering of other white wolf, have played 4 editions of dnd, pathfinder, paranoia, a bunch of free league stuff including coriolis and forbidden lands, own several PBTA games and most of the products ever produced by Eden Studios.
Your description of GMs makes them sound like they stand apart from players. My current DnD group is made up of 7 people, 6 of whom have themselves GMed at least one RPG (DnD or otherwise). I've played plenty of games across a range of systems where the initial discussions about how the game would play were had.
And in those discussions did the GMs ever talk about when or if they would decide to fudge dice? Bend or break the rules for what they felt was best?
Session zeros are great. Glad your group is doing them.
You have a very narrow definition of an RPG and there are THOUSANDS of RPGS that are not designed to conform to your definition.
There are diceless RPGs where the outcome is determined by discussion. There are GMless RPGs where the group collectively decide how the plot will unfold.
And obviously in a thread titled DnD 5.5/6E Poll in which we are discussing various editions of DnD we are not talking about diceless RPGs. This isn't my narrow definition of what an RPG can be. This is the type of RPG we are discussing.
DnD 4th edition is not the sole definition of a roleplaying game and is in fact the exception.
All I'm hearing is 'I have a very narrow definition of what an RPG is and how to correctly play one'. This restrictive mindset is one of the many reasons I don't like DnD, it encourages people to blinker themselves and only do what's spoon fed to them by the game...
Pretty sure 4E hasn't even come up here. See above for the rest of this.
I have to admit, Lance has been a fairly clear and accurate and honest interlocutor in this thread. They haven't really gotten personal, or made silly accusations. I think they've been honest about what they thinks good gameplay is, and why they think that. I have no problem with how they have represented their arguments here. On the whole I think everyone here has been.
And yes, I only brought up previous versions of DnD to cite an example of what "used to be" and now isn't. I NEVER brought up 4th, because I refuse to ever talk about that. It was singularly the worst edition I ever played.
The strange thing about D&D is that it relies more on unwritten social contract to work than the actual written rules.
It is clear that Rule 0 is that the DM makes the rules. Full stop. The reason this is called Rule 0, is because it is an inherent assumption in D&D. I am not sure if it is even written anywhere officially because I am not that familiar with D&D, even after playing since '84.
However, there is another unwritten corollary to Rule 0. If a player is not having fun playing in a game, they can quit. This is also not a written rule.
The two main "rules" of the game aren't even written down anywhere that I can think of. Because the core question of D&D is "Are you willing to play the game?" is assumed in the written works.
Therefore, playing a game of D&D is more about the unwritten social contract between all the players than it is about the actual rules-as-written, and creating a balance in the social dynamics of the group is more important. The Rules are just one-component of doing that, but the group dynamics are also part of it as well.
A personal example, I have seen 100's of times where my PC has been done. The DM could easily killed the character dead-dead without even a dice roll. For some reason, they don't use the three attack monster next to me to just attack me and remove all my death saves and kill me. Why? It is fully within the rules? We never talked about it in Session 0? Because doing so would end the game.
The core assumption of D&D is that the game must continue in some form as long as the players are willing to play. The game really only ends when the players are no longer willing to play. Therefore, there is no winning or losing D&D, there is only playing D&D.
*= Of course, if a single character dies I could just make a new one, but the barrier of re-entry is higher than continuing with an existing one. Every time a campaign ends, a character dies, or a story line is over; it is that much harder to get the players to say they will play again. It is easier for the players to simply agree to just keep going with what they have.
I have only once seen the "The Monsters know what they're doing" style of DM'ing, and it was a request by a group of players to have a no-holds barred "Deadly" campaign. It lasted literally 1 session, where the Orc Chief double tapped the Paladin and the cleric, killing them instantly, and the rest of the party was fairly quick.
People don't expect to go up against actually intelligent creatures/BBEGs in combat. Which is why Character level 5-8 is so difficult for a lot of DMs. It's hard to justify the Lich NOT using Disintegrate on the first turn, or counter spelling the healer. The really ugly stuff starts showing up around level 5, 6, and 7.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I have only once seen the "The Monsters know what they're doing" style of DM'ing, and it was a request by a group of players to have a no-holds barred "Deadly" campaign. It lasted literally 1 session, where the Orc Chief double tapped the Paladin and the cleric, killing them instantly, and the rest of the party was fairly quick.
People don't expect to go up against actually intelligent creatures/BBEGs in combat. Which is why Character level 5-8 is so difficult for a lot of DMs. It's hard to justify the Lich NOT using Disintegrate on the first turn, or counter spelling the healer. The really ugly stuff starts showing up around level 5, 6, and 7.
Why would you be fighting a Lich at level 5-8?
In 5E, it's CR 21. A party of five level eight PCs has a daily experience budget of 30,000, while a Lich is worth 33,000 alone-and why would it be alone? And in-universe, what the heck are a couple of low-level chumps doing to raise the ire of a Lich?
In 3.5, it's a minimum of CR 13, if the template is applied to a level 11 caster. So, on its own, it's technically supposed to be a reasonable if somewhat difficult encounter for four level 8 PCs. But, why on earth would it be alone?
As the DM, it's possible to kill the PCs at any time. You control literally the entire universe, besides the PCs-and sixteen DC 48 Wisdom/Will saves later, they get mind controlled because screw them.
I'm not saying to coddle the characters or players. But there should be ways for them to interact-signs that an encounter is overwhelming and a way to escape, if an overwhelming encounter makes sense.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I have only once seen the "The Monsters know what they're doing" style of DM'ing, and it was a request by a group of players to have a no-holds barred "Deadly" campaign. It lasted literally 1 session, where the Orc Chief double tapped the Paladin and the cleric, killing them instantly, and the rest of the party was fairly quick.
People don't expect to go up against actually intelligent creatures/BBEGs in combat. Which is why Character level 5-8 is so difficult for a lot of DMs. It's hard to justify the Lich NOT using Disintegrate on the first turn, or counter spelling the healer. The really ugly stuff starts showing up around level 5, 6, and 7.
Why would you be fighting a Lich at level 5-8?
In 5E, it's CR 21. A party of five level eight PCs has a daily experience budget of 30,000, while a Lich is worth 33,000 alone-and why would it be alone? And in-universe, what the heck are a couple of low-level chumps doing to raise the ire of a Lich?
In 3.5, it's a minimum of CR 13, if the template is applied to a level 11 caster. So, on its own, it's technically supposed to be a reasonable if somewhat difficult encounter for four level 8 PCs. But, why on earth would it be alone?
As the DM, it's possible to kill the PCs at any time. You control literally the entire universe, besides the PCs-and sixteen DC 48 Wisdom/Will saves later, they get mind controlled because screw them.
I'm not saying to coddle the characters or players. But there should be ways for them to interact-signs that an encounter is overwhelming and a way to escape, if an overwhelming encounter makes sense.
No you're right. Lich was an extremely bad example. I was trying to think of a high intelligence monster, and Acerak popped into my head, because you're supposed to be around 6-8+ just to enter the dungeon.
All you're doing is describing how limited your experience with RPGs and the people that play them is.
My experience is I have been playing/running them for almost 3 decades, have written 2 of my own. Own every edition of Mage, along with a smattering of other white wolf, have played 4 editions of dnd, pathfinder, paranoia, a bunch of free league stuff including coriolis and forbidden lands, own several PBTA games and most of the products ever produced by Eden Studios.
Your description of GMs makes them sound like they stand apart from players. My current DnD group is made up of 7 people, 6 of whom have themselves GMed at least one RPG (DnD or otherwise). I've played plenty of games across a range of systems where the initial discussions about how the game would play were had.
And in those discussions did the GMs ever talk about when or if they would decide to fudge dice? Bend or break the rules for what they felt was best?
Session zeros are great. Glad your group is doing them.
You have a very narrow definition of an RPG and there are THOUSANDS of RPGS that are not designed to conform to your definition.
There are diceless RPGs where the outcome is determined by discussion. There are GMless RPGs where the group collectively decide how the plot will unfold.
And obviously in a thread titled DnD 5.5/6E Poll in which we are discussing various editions of DnD we are not talking about diceless RPGs. This isn't my narrow definition of what an RPG can be. This is the type of RPG we are discussing.
DnD 4th edition is not the sole definition of a roleplaying game and is in fact the exception.
All I'm hearing is 'I have a very narrow definition of what an RPG is and how to correctly play one'. This restrictive mindset is one of the many reasons I don't like DnD, it encourages people to blinker themselves and only do what's spoon fed to them by the game...
Pretty sure 4E hasn't even come up here. See above for the rest of this.
You specified that RPGS are boardgames as a justification for having hard unfudgeable rules. That paints the entire genre, not just DnD.
Your argument from authority doesn't in any way protect your assertions about unfudgability or boardgame strictures. It makes them look worse, because if in all that time of writing and playing you're still stuck on that concept, then you've not experienced much of the breadth of RPGs.
I mentioned DnD 4th as a direct reference to the 'RPGs are boardgames' comment as its the most boardgamey of the DnD editions and also died the fastest.
I have seen far more RPGs with explicit permission for GMs to fudge rules or ignore them entirely, than I have RPG rulebooks that say 'you cannot deviate from these rules in any way. Fudging is right out because its cheating'. Which runs entirely counter to your argument.
You specified that RPGS are boardgames as a justification for having hard unfudgeable rules. That paints the entire genre, not just DnD.
Sure. I don't see what that has to do with mentioning that some games rules are diceless or not. But yeah. Games have rules. TTRPGs as a type of game also has rules. In fact, TTRPGs have some of the longest rule books on the market.
Your argument from authority doesn't in any way protect your assertions about unfudgability or boardgame strictures. It makes them look worse, because if in all that time of writing and playing you're still stuck on that concept, then you've not experienced much of the breadth of RPGs.
This isn't the "unfudgability of boardgame strictures". This is about games period. It doesn't matter if you are playing Football, Baseball, Uno, Monolopoly, dnd, or Dread. The game has rules and the people playing the game agree to play by those rules. Can the group decide to play by different rules? Absolutely. House rules can, do, and SHOULD exist. But everyone playing should be on the same page of what rules they are playing by. That is the baseline social contract of all players getting together to play a game.
What exactly are you defending here? Do you think the GM should be capable of making up their own rules? Or keeping the rest of the players in the dark about what exactly the rules are? Why do you think TTRPGs are unique in the world of games in that the majority of the players shouldn't be made aware of the rules of the game?
I mentioned DnD 4th as a direct reference to the 'RPGs are boardgames' comment as its the most boardgamey of the DnD editions and also died the fastest.
Ive said it plenty of times. 4th isn't actually any more board gamy then any other edition of dnd. It just hid it the worst. They are all skirmish level miniature wargames first with some RPG stuff slapped on top.
I have seen far more RPGs with explicit permission for GMs to fudge rules or ignore them entirely, than I have RPG rulebooks that say 'you cannot deviate from these rules in any way. Fudging is right out because its cheating'. Which runs entirely counter to your argument.
My argument which you seem to keep missing, is that the whole table should be aware. Again I ask (without anyone answering) have you ever had a session zero in which the GM TOLD the table that they would be fudging rolls and making those decisions? No? Why not? If it's okay to do, why are you keeping it a secret?
You specified that RPGS are boardgames as a justification for having hard unfudgeable rules. That paints the entire genre, not just DnD.
Sure. I don't see what that has to do with mentioning that some games rules are diceless or not. But yeah. Games have rules. TTRPGs as a type of game also has rules. In fact, TTRPGs have some of the longest rule books on the market.
Your argument from authority doesn't in any way protect your assertions about unfudgability or boardgame strictures. It makes them look worse, because if in all that time of writing and playing you're still stuck on that concept, then you've not experienced much of the breadth of RPGs.
This isn't the "unfudgability of boardgame strictures". This is about games period. It doesn't matter if you are playing Football, Baseball, Uno, Monolopoly, dnd, or Dread. The game has rules and the people playing the game agree to play by those rules. Can the group decide to play by different rules? Absolutely. House rules can, do, and SHOULD exist. But everyone playing should be on the same page of what rules they are playing by. That is the baseline social contract of all players getting together to play a game.
What exactly are you defending here? Do you think the GM should be capable of making up their own rules? Or keeping the rest of the players in the dark about what exactly the rules are? Why do you think TTRPGs are unique in the world of games in that the majority of the players shouldn't be made aware of the rules of the game?
I mentioned DnD 4th as a direct reference to the 'RPGs are boardgames' comment as its the most boardgamey of the DnD editions and also died the fastest.
Ive said it plenty of times. 4th isn't actually any more board gamy then any other edition of dnd. It just hid it the worst. They are all skirmish level miniature wargames first with some RPG stuff slapped on top.
I have seen far more RPGs with explicit permission for GMs to fudge rules or ignore them entirely, than I have RPG rulebooks that say 'you cannot deviate from these rules in any way. Fudging is right out because its cheating'. Which runs entirely counter to your argument.
My argument which you seem to keep missing, is that the whole table should be aware. Again I ask (without anyone answering) have you ever had a session zero in which the GM TOLD the table that they would be fudging rolls and making those decisions? No? Why not? If it's okay to do, why are you keeping it a secret?
Because showing how the magic trick was done, destroys the "veil of ignorance" that allows the players to be engaged in the make believe setting. If all the sudden you tell the players, you all really died in the last fight, but I faked the rolls, the begin to realize the entire premise is an act/a fake. The DM has a screen for a reason. You're never supposed to "know" the exact truth.
...and by choosing to play, you are telling the magician you are ready for the performance to begin. The first rule of RPG is the GM makes the rules because they interpret the rules.
Many players want to believe that everything is equal and fair and the rules are the arbitrator of success and failure, but they are fooling themselves. The only arbitrator is their willingness to go along with the game and for how long. RPGs are a social contract based on trust more than anything else.
The game stops exactly when the players say it does.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Because showing how the magic trick was done, destroys the "veil of ignorance" that allows the players to be engaged in the make believe setting. If all the sudden you tell the players, you all really died in the last fight, but I faked the rolls, the begin to realize the entire premise is an act/a fake. The DM has a screen for a reason. You're never supposed to "know" the exact truth.
Okay. Couple things to address and I am going to address them out of order.
1) The GM screen exists for a lot of reasons. Reference charts being one. Hidden information is another. But not the hidden information you are implying. The point is to be able to keep a map of the dungeon or a reference to a monster and the players to not be able to see what the layout of the place is or whats coming in the next room. Yes. The players want to be surprised. THAT is the magic trick. What they don't want is to be lied to.
2) And that gets to the example you gave about them dying but they didn't because you fudged. They are pissed because their achievements are not achievements. They never actually accomplished anything. You held their hand the entire time and as a result this wasn't really collaborative at all.
You as the GM are not the magician putting on a show for the table. You as the GM are putting on a show WITH them. They are ALSO in the performance. They share the stage with you. Their role in it ALSO matters. This isn't YOUR show.
That veil of ignorance is important. It helps you to set up surprises and twists and turns and in turn their reactions create surprises for you. But using it to change the rules that everyone agreed to is an abuse of it.
Easy E wrote:...and by choosing to play, you are telling the magician you are ready for the performance to begin. The first rule of RPG is the GM makes the rules because they interpret the rules.
Many players want to believe that everything is equal and fair and the rules are the arbitrator of success and failure, but they are fooling themselves. The only arbitrator is their willingness to go along with the game and for how long.
There is a reason ODnD and the OSR style games with a bent towards GM fiat are built that way. The games are basically incomplete. They require a judge to step in and make decisions because the rules don't account for much of anything outside of combat. This means when the players make up some crazy solution for a problem the GM has to just improve style make up how the game is going to account for it. That is the GM interpreting the rules.
Changing dice results isn't that.
RPGs are a social contract based on trust more than anything else.
The game stops exactly when the players say it does.
Yeah. I agree. And the argument being made here is that GMs are cool to bend and break that trust however they feel like as long as they don't get caught. The cardinal sin isn't the deception. It's the disappointment the players feel when they find out they were deceived.
No, the trust is that you are collaborating for a fun game. You aren't competing. There is no winning or losing RPGs, there is only playing them and experiencing them. The play IS the win.
What is the difference between fudging a dice roll, versus the GM not always attacking a downed PC to remove them from the game in D&D 5e? I have been downed many times next to a monster with three attacks. Shouldn't the GM use those three attacks every time to kill my downed character outgriht? By them not doing that, does it decrease my achievement? But what am I actually achieving in an RPG anyway?
A lot of people advocate for what you are saying Lance. Therefore, I don't think you are "having wrong fun" but I do think players focused on that are missing half of what makes an RPG experience different from a dungeon-crawl board game experience. You can have tons of fun playing RAW, but you are missing out on the world of possibilities by focusing on one aspect of TTRPGs too strongly. What makes a TTRPG a unique experience to other game experiences is the GM and their autonomy over the game itself. The ability to make the world bend based on what characters are doing. I mean, why have a GM otherwise?
Easy E wrote: No, the trust is that you are collaborating for a fun game. You aren't competing. There is no winning or losing RPGs, there is only playing them and experiencing them. The play IS the win.
I agree that this is the goal/point.
What is the difference between fudging a dice roll, versus the GM not always attacking a downed PC to remove them from the game in D&D 5e? I have been downed many times next to a monster with three attacks. Shouldn't the GM use those three attacks every time to kill my downed character outright? By them not doing that, does it decrease my achievement?
Outside of the functional mechanics of dnd just to set up the system neutral situation of a character is vulnerable and the creature could kill them: The GM should do what that creature would do. Having effectively eliminated a threat but still being threatened by other people it would generally make sense for the antagonist in this scenario to shift their attention. There are articles and I think even a small supplement/book on the subject of NPC/Monster behavior. How a GM should play a goblin like a goblin and a kobold like a kobold and how that RP behavior changes and shapes encounters and immersion in the world. The GM shouldn't spare your life because it makes for a more fun game. They should be doing what the NPC would do. Which, very reasonably, would mostly be about leaving you unconscious but alive.
A predatory pack animal might try to drag away it's "kill" without checking to see if it is dead. Which can turn a combat in a confined known space into a chase. An exciting change that reshapes the encounter and tells a different story.
But what am I actually achieving in an RPG anyway?
The actual events of the story. You either won because it was handed to you or you won because YOU won. Do you really enjoy defeating the demon king story when you had plot armor?
A lot of people advocate for what you are saying Lance. Therefore, I don't think you are "having wrong fun" but I do think players focused on that are missing half of what makes an RPG experience different from a dungeon-crawl board game experience. You can have tons of fun playing RAW, but you are missing out on the world of possibilities by focusing on one aspect of TTRPGs too strongly. What makes a TTRPG a unique experience to other game experiences is the GM and their autonomy over the game itself. The ability to make the world bend based on what characters are doing. I mean, why have a GM otherwise?
I am not advocating for RAW. I am advocating for known consistent rules. If the GM is allowed to fudge and is going to fudge the PCs should know what game they are playing so they can chose to play or not. What I have a problem with is the GM deciding whatever they want without the rest of the tables knowledge or consent.
A lot of people advocate for what you are saying Lance. Therefore, I don't think you are "having wrong fun" but I do think players focused on that are missing half of what makes an RPG experience different from a dungeon-crawl board game experience. You can have tons of fun playing RAW, but you are missing out on the world of possibilities by focusing on one aspect of TTRPGs too strongly. What makes a TTRPG a unique experience to other game experiences is the GM and their autonomy over the game itself. The ability to make the world bend based on what characters are doing. I mean, why have a GM otherwise?
I am not advocating for RAW. I am advocating for known consistent rules. If the GM is allowed to fudge and is going to fudge the PCs should know what game they are playing so they can chose to play or not. What I have a problem with is the GM deciding whatever they want without the rest of the tables knowledge or consent.
Now I think we are getting to the heart of the matter.
Most TTRPGs are pretty clear, typically in a what is a "Role-Playing Game" section; that the GM is the final arbiter of what is and is not allowed in the game. That includes setting challenge levels, interpreting outcomes, NPC reactions, and sharing results. By agreeing to play a TTRPG, you are also agreeing to this as well. Therefore, it is a known and consistent rule right off the bat. I honestly can not think of a TTRPG that does not have this as a core explanation of the game and the rules.
Even in a system where the GM never rolls but sets the challenge level, they can easily "fudge" things up and down whenever they set a difficulty rating or grant Modifiers. Pretending that the GM doesn't control the difficulty rating of a TTRPG is self-delusion. Is changing the Challenge rating up or down really any different than fudging a roll? You could say, well the rules explicitly give them that power! They also are explicitly given the power to fudge in their role as GM.
As someone else pointed out earlier. TTRPGS are not balanced, as the GM controls the world of the game. By agreeing to play, you are agreeing to play a part in the GM's world. You are giving consent that the GM makes the rules. That means they may or may not intervene on your behalf sometimes. This is a collaboration and failures can end the GM's game too.
Some would say, "But then it is just a game of Mother May I or Simon Says!" True, but the players can also stop playing the game whenever they want. That is the check players have on GM worlds they no longer want to play in. Therefore, even though the GMs are the final judge of what goes in the game, there is a hard check on the GM's power. A GM with no players is not a GM at all.
Therefore, it is in everyone's best interests to stay collaborative and bend/enforce/break the rules when needed for the good of the game continuing rather than ending. The worst thing that can happen to a TTRPG, is that it stops before it is supposed to end.
Most TTRPGs are pretty clear, typically in a what is a "Role-Playing Game" section; that the GM is the final arbiter of what is and is not allowed in the game. That includes setting challenge levels, interpreting outcomes, NPC reactions, and sharing results. By agreeing to play a TTRPG, you are also agreeing to this as well. Therefore, it is a known and consistent rule right off the bat. I honestly can not think of a TTRPG that does not have this as a core explanation of the game and the rules.
All of this. Agree. I agree that the GM sets the challenge rating. But it doesn't say they can change dice results.
Even in a system where the GM never rolls but sets the challenge level, they can easily "fudge" things up and down whenever they set a difficulty rating or grant Modifiers.
Agree. The GM easily CAN do. Just like a PC can easily roll a die, announce a 20 despite it being a 1 and put the die back in their hand before anyone can check. What someone at the table easily CAN do is not the same as what they SHOULD do. What we are discussing here is correct conduct. That PC would be ostracized for cheating.
Pretending that the GM doesn't control the difficulty rating of a TTRPG is self-delusion. Is changing the Challenge rating up or down really any different than fudging a roll?
No. Once the CR is set it should stick.
You could say, well the rules explicitly give them that power! They also are explicitly given the power to fudge in their role as GM.
Now is where i disagree. Where? Name a book and page number for me to look up where a GM is given explicit permission to change dice results and lie to the players about it. This thread is specifically about dnd (5.5/6th), so if you have a 5th ed reference that would be great. But id love to see anything from 3rd forward. But more importantly, tell me where this is spelled out to the PCs. Otherwise we are back to my previous statements on informed consent.
As someone else pointed out earlier. TTRPGS are not balanced, as the GM controls the world of the game. By agreeing to play, you are agreeing to play a part in the GM's world. You are giving consent that the GM makes the rules. That means they may or may not intervene on your behalf sometimes. This is a collaboration and failures can end the GM's game too.
Some would say, "But then it is just a game of Mother May I or Simon Says!" True, but the players can also stop playing the game whenever they want. That is the check players have on GM worlds they no longer want to play in. Therefore, even though the GMs are the final judge of what goes in the game, there is a hard check on the GM's power. A GM with no players is not a GM at all.
The players ability to exercise their judgement on playing or not is based on their knowledge of the game they are playing. If they are not informed properly they cannot properly exercize their checks and balances.
Therefore, it is in everyone's best interests to stay collaborative and bend/enforce/break the rules when needed for the good of the game continuing rather than ending. The worst thing that can happen to a TTRPG, is that it stops before it is supposed to end.
Sure. So when the PCs want they can bend and break the rules and lie to the table about it as long as they think what they are doing is best for the enjoyment being had at the table, right? If a PC thinks a crit would be just right in that moment then feth the dice results. Make it a crit. Heroic moment. Everyone cheers.
I will have to go grab by PHB to look at how it talks about what is an RPG. I don't have it in front of me.
From the three RPGs I have within arm's reach at the moment:
1. G.I. Joe- Renegade Studios - Page 32 "Based on a character actions and decisions, and the results of dice rolls, the GM determines what happens in the game."
"There is no winning this game. The objective of the game is to have fun while weaving the goals of the group, objectives of the GM, and whatever happens between together into a story."
2. Legend of the 5 Rings: 5th Edition - Fantasy Flight Games - Page 6 "A role-playing game is a cooperative story-telling experience. Each player takes on the role of a fictional character and decides what the character would think, say, do and feel in dramatic situations! Like many games, it has rules, components, and dice to help describe and resolve those situations. Unlike most games, an RPG has no winner or loser and no opposing teams. If everyone has fun and enjoys the resulting story, then everyone wins"
3. Avatar: Legends - Magpie Games - page 8 "Very importantly, the GM isn't playing against the other players. They are there to build out the world faithfully while building out a set of interesting conflicts - to say what happens and what exists in a way that makes a fictional world make sense. And they are here to keep things compelling and exciting- which includes honoring how awesome the other player characters are."
All of these descriptions have one thing in common, it is the job of the GM to weave things together to tell the story and facilitate fun. It does not say slavishly execute the rules, because that sometimes gets in the way of accomplishing the core goal of the game, having fun.
L5R and Avatar are the most explicit about the GM deciding things. However, even G.I. Joe the GM decides what happens in a game. The character actions and dice rolls are a tool to help them do that, but ultimately it is up to the GM to decide what happens. All of these sections are before a player even tries to make a character.
The intent and role of the GM in these games is clear to new players who read these sections.
**************************
However, ultimately it is up to you (The player) to decide if you like what is happening at any table and decide every time if you want to keep it going or not. If you suspect fudging, and you do not like it? You can walk away at anytime, bow out, or give the GM feedback about what you want to see in a game.
Perfect. So far we have 3 examples that state in a couple sentences what an rpg is and in broad strokes what everyones role is at the table.
In the most explicit one it states that the gm interprets player actions and dice rolls into functional descriptions of the impact in the game world. That means you rolled just enough to hit so the description is about how you barely squeaked by their defences or you went way above and beyond and deliver a crushing blow.
In none of these descriptions does it say it is the job of the GM (Or that they have permission to) just change the results of those dice or just change the rules willy nilly.
They are helping facilitate play and working with the players to create a fun time. Absolutely. 100%. I am all on board.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me try to summarize where I think we are in this discussion right now.
You guys are stating both that 1) The players are purposefully kept ignorant of the fact that the GM is fudging results and changing rules to keep the "magic" magic and promote a good game experience AND 2) that the rule books explicitly state that it is the GMs job to do this and that they have explicit permission to fudge that is presented to the players in some capacity.
This is what I think is the reason why you feel this way.
Way back with Gygax in his DMG full of terrible advise and/or some articles written in Dungeon and/or Dragon magazine players were encouraged to do these things. This terrible idea was then carried forward as standard practice despite not actually being in any of the rule books for any of the games you have been playing for the last few decades.
Much like how basically nobody has ever actually played Monopoly by the rules (most people have never even heard of the auction rule let alone implemented it correctly) you guys have been acting out learned behaviors that you picked up word of mouth back in the day and just assumed were in the print when in fact they never were.
Maybe I am wrong about that. But it seems about as good an explanation for this phenomenon as any other.
Happy to be proven wrong. As soon as anyone digs out that page number where it is stated a GM has free reign to fudge dice in DnD I would love to go read it for myself.
Lance845 wrote: Perfect. So far we have 3 examples that state in a couple sentences what an rpg is and in broad strokes what everyones role is at the table.
In the most explicit one it states that the gm interprets player actions and dice rolls into functional descriptions of the impact in the game world. That means you rolled just enough to hit so the description is about how you barely squeaked by their defences or you went way above and beyond and deliver a crushing blow.
In none of these descriptions does it say it is the job of the GM (Or that they have permission to) just change the results of those dice or just change the rules willy nilly.
They are helping facilitate play and working with the players to create a fun time. Absolutely. 100%. I am all on board.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me try to summarize where I think we are in this discussion right now.
You guys are stating both that 1) The players are purposefully kept ignorant of the fact that the GM is fudging results and changing rules to keep the "magic" magic and promote a good game experience AND 2) that the rule books explicitly state that it is the GMs job to do this and that they have explicit permission to fudge that is presented to the players in some capacity.
This is what I think is the reason why you feel this way.
Way back with Gygax in his DMG full of terrible advise and/or some articles written in Dungeon and/or Dragon magazine players were encouraged to do these things. This terrible idea was then carried forward as standard practice despite not actually being in any of the rule books for any of the games you have been playing for the last few decades.
Much like how basically nobody has ever actually played Monopoly by the rules (most people have never even heard of the auction rule let alone implemented it correctly) you guys have been acting out learned behaviors that you picked up word of mouth back in the day and just assumed were in the print when in fact they never were.
Maybe I am wrong about that. But it seems about as good an explanation for this phenomenon as any other.
Happy to be proven wrong. As soon as anyone digs out that page number where it is stated a GM has free reign to fudge dice in DnD I would love to go read it for myself.
I'm happy that you summarized the discussion, but could you summarize your personal stance? I don't want to strawman you.
I Believe it's the GM's job to make sure the players have a good time and enjoy the game. As for source:
Page 1 of the DMG.
Introduction
Part 3: Master of Rules: "Dungeons & Dragons isn’t a head-to-head competition, but it needs someone who is impartial yet involved in the game to guarantee that everyone at the table plays by the rules. As the player who creates the game world and the adventures that take place within it, the DM is a natural fit to take on the referee role."
As the DM/GM of the game, I have ultimate authority over all rules in the game. I am the Lord Commissar of all things in the game. If I don't like the roll that my Storm Giant just made, it is inherently within my powers to Legendary Failed Action the giant.
I decide all the rules, and am the Referee. Sometimes I get the rules wrong, oh well.
I'm happy that you summarized the discussion, but could you summarize your personal stance? I don't want to strawman you.
Sure. The rules of any game can be anything and that includes personal or house rules. But everyone playing the game needs to be aware of the rules in order to have informed consent to participate in that game. Deception beyond the scope of the game/rules is bad form. It's cheating. Even in a collaborative setting.
The deception beyond the scope/rules: Games like Werewolf, Murder Mysteries, or Resistence or even TTRPGs like the cinematic scenarios for Alien have secret agendas that are a part of the game. The lies and deception ARE the game play. Thats fine. Bending and breaking the rules is not.
I Believe it's the GM's job to make sure the players have a good time and enjoy the game. As for source:
Page 1 of the DMG.
Introduction
Part 3: Master of Rules: "Dungeons & Dragons isn’t a head-to-head competition, but it needs someone who is impartial yet involved in the game to guarantee that everyone at the table plays by the rules. As the player who creates the game world and the adventures that take place within it, the DM is a natural fit to take on the referee role."
I agree to an extent that the GMs job is to make sure everyone is having fun in so much as when you play any game with anyone it is everyone's job to make sure everyone is having fun. That's why you are there playing games. It is why everyone got together to begin with.
See this bit...
" but it needs someone who is impartial yet involved in the game to guarantee that everyone at the table plays by the rules.
As the player who creates the game world and the adventures that take place within it"
EVERYONE at the table. The GM is at the table. A referee at a soccer game doesn't make up rules. They ensure the rules are being followed.If you are failing to hold yourself accountable by this same standard then you are utterly failing to be the impartial referee the game is asking for.
As the DM/GM of the game, I have ultimate authority over all rules in the game. I am the Lord Commissar of all things in the game. If I don't like the roll that my Storm Giant just made, it is inherently within my powers to Legendary Failed Action the giant.
I decide all the rules, and am the Referee. Sometimes I get the rules wrong, oh well.
And now we disagree entirely. You are not god. You are not meant to be judge jury and executioner over the table. You are meant to be an impartial arbiter over the game you ALL decided to play. What you are talking about isn't being a referee.
Mistakes can happen and that's fine when we own up to them and take corrective actions. Purposefully getting the rules wrong isn't making mistakes. Just like the PC who lies about his rolls, it's cheating. And it cheats everyone else at the table out of the game experience that COULD have been because you decided you knew best. This attitude is at the very center of 90% of every rpg horror story. Every bad GM. Every bad player.
I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what the role of GM Fiat is in an RPG.
Our stance is that GM Fiat is very broad. Your is that GM Fiat is limited by the rules.
We think the rules are permissive and living. You prefer to go by what they say exactly.
Honestly, no TTRPG is going to say one way or the other, because that would limit their market share from the people who feel differently. All of this is just RAW vs. RAI in a different game period.
I did manage to grab my 5E PHB and it says this on page 5
"Then the DM determines the results of the adventurer's actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected"
With all that said, play however you want! There is really no need for us to keep going back and forth. You do what works for you and your table, and I will do what is working for me and my table.
To avoid this entire discussion, I have actually moved to letting my players roll ALL the dice in the game.
Easy E wrote: I think we have a fundamental disagreement about what the role of GM Fiat is in an RPG.
Our stance is that GM Fiat is very broad. Your is that GM Fiat is limited by the rules.
We think the rules are permissive and living. You prefer to go by what they say exactly.
Honestly, no TTRPG is going to say one way or the other, because that would limit their market share from the people who feel differently. All of this is just RAW vs. RAI in a different game period.
I did manage to grab my 5E PHB and it says this on page 5
"Then the DM determines the results of the adventurer's actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can be exciting and unexpected"
With all that said, play however you want! There is really no need for us to keep going back and forth. You do what works for you and your table, and I will do what is working for me and my table.
To avoid this entire discussion, I have actually moved to letting my players roll ALL the dice in the game.
Absolutely. Your groups are having fun playing the game you agreed to play and that's great.
My groups have fun playing the game we agreed to play.
Like I said. The rules can be anything. You can set the expectation of absolute GM control in your session zero if you want and the players can all agree to those terms or find another game.
I think 1 thing we can all agree on, is that the future of RPGS depends on making running a game of a TTRPG seem easier for future GMs.
I know D&DOne is focused on the VTT and AIDMs. The idea is that players would probably have to pay premiums to get access to these "solo-rpg" options and probably strip the PC related rules into asset classes that are paid for individually. I.e. Champion Fighter is free! But to get the rules and Mods for Battlemaster is a $0.99 a month sub.
This smells of not understanding what makes a TTRPG really stand out from a CRPG experience. My question is, what tools, resources, or ideas have we seen in D&DOne to help create future and more DMs?
Easy E wrote: I think 1 thing we can all agree on, is that the future of RPGS depends on making running a game of a TTRPG seem easier for future GMs.
I know D&DOne is focused on the VTT and AIDMs. The idea is that players would probably have to pay premiums to get access to these "solo-rpg" options and probably strip the PC related rules into asset classes that are paid for individually. I.e. Champion Fighter is free! But to get the rules and Mods for Battlemaster is a $0.99 a month sub.
This smells of not understanding what makes a TTRPG really stand out from a CRPG experience. My question is, what tools, resources, or ideas have we seen in D&DOne to help create future and more DMs?
Great points.
I haven't read anything about One in the view of a GM. As a matter of fact, the design intent that I have seen, is for DND to move Away from person DMs. They've flat out stated, "We don't like how one person has all the books, and everyone gets the access, we need to monetize everyone at the table." So they want 6 paying players, no DM, instead of 1 Paying DM, 5 non-paying players. I would be very surprised if there was ANY addins for making a real GM's life easier in 1.
I have my old 1st, 2d, and additional games. The games I'm playing now come from Renegade, Free Leagues, Chaosium, and Modiphius they are just that much more fun without the creators and writers and everyone from a company that prides itself at being outright douche canoes. They are the very definition of Toxic Environment.
The Walking Dead, Twilight:2000, Fallout, Call of Cthulhu, etc are just that much more interesting then a halfhearted retread of base mechanics turning a 60-70 year old game into something out of the Twilight Zone.
When there are more then enough companies out there that WANT your business and treat you with a modicum of respect, are approachable, and want to interact with you, Microsoft front companies are just not worth your time.
This Company hates customers. They hate players. All they want is to throw gasoline at the dumpster fire that they themselves have started.
2024 Player's Handbook September 17, 2024
2024 Dungeon Master's Guide November 12, 2024
2025 Monster Manual February 18, 2025
Don't want, don't buy. No one is going to throw a fit if you don't buy the latest edition of D&D. But the fantastical corporate warmongering getting tossed about is... becoming real weird.
I really wish Paizo would make a self designed app or anything even approaching the nature of DND:B, and I'd start playing that tomorrow. Biggest issue I have is getting new players into a completely different system. I have mostly people like myself playing, Middle Aged corporate drone workers who between: Life, kids, job, and family time, have about 2-3 hours a WEEK to dedicate to DnD. That's only enough for a session a week, throw a completely new system into the works, and everyone is out.
It's why I can't get a game of 3rd together.
The actual money paying player base of DND is held together by the ducktape that is 40+ year olds that are clinging to their books, desperate to keep playing. The old style of "DM has all the books anbd stuff" has made a culture of only one person really needs to know the rules. Everyone else is just there to throw dice and drink beers/attempt to seduce X. No DnD is going to a "Everyone must contribute" model of ownership, and I'm guessing this will kill the hobby for WOTC at least.
Personally i would be happy if DTRPG did something like that with their library.
You have have just regular pdfs. Or produce your docs according to their standards with their support to make them more functional as a database for usage.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I really wish Paizo would make a self designed app or anything even approaching the nature of DND:B, and I'd start playing that tomorrow. Biggest issue I have is getting new players into a completely different system. I have mostly people like myself playing, Middle Aged corporate drone workers who between: Life, kids, job, and family time, have about 2-3 hours a WEEK to dedicate to DnD. That's only enough for a session a week, throw a completely new system into the works, and everyone is out.
This is also my experience. However, my group ranges from 20-somethings, to 50+ grognards.
That said, with actual books being available for 6th, I am not sure what my group will do.
They are all addicted to the ease of D&D Beyond, so if that kind forces a move to 6th, I would not be shocked if my group also makes the move too.
I played in a PF2 game. I can tell it's a pretty robust system and if I was 20 years younger I'd probably really like it.
But as it is, I just found it so tedious. Every time we had to level up I was depressed at the thought of having to scroll through all the feat lists. Eventually I just let a guy in the group who loves building characters level me up. I reckon it's the kind of game where you need an app because the system is so complex, and that's really offputting to me.
I'm all about games where you don't worry about that crap now, just get to the table in the minimum amount of time and get playing. White Box: Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game, a retro-clone of OD&D is my favourite go to at the moment.
I don't like apps for my RPGs though, never used D&D beyond or any of that stuff. I used to do a lot of prep on computer and have even moved away for that now. All my prep is in a bullet journal these days.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I really wish Paizo would make a self designed app or anything even approaching the nature of DND:B, and I'd start playing that tomorrow. Biggest issue I have is getting new players into a completely different system. I have mostly people like myself playing, Middle Aged corporate drone workers who between: Life, kids, job, and family time, have about 2-3 hours a WEEK to dedicate to DnD. That's only enough for a session a week, throw a completely new system into the works, and everyone is out.
It's why I can't get a game of 3rd together.
The actual money paying player base of DND is held together by the ducktape that is 40+ year olds that are clinging to their books, desperate to keep playing. The old style of "DM has all the books anbd stuff" has made a culture of only one person really needs to know the rules. Everyone else is just there to throw dice and drink beers/attempt to seduce X. No DnD is going to a "Everyone must contribute" model of ownership, and I'm guessing this will kill the hobby for WOTC at least.
The devs of Beyond actually made Demiplane and Pathfinder Nexus, which covers most of what you're looking for. Mind, adoption feels like it's been pretty slim, as it doesn't have 3rd party content from Infinite AFAIK, and both Archives of Nethys and Pathbuilder exist for rules reference and character building, and both of those are free (or a one-time $5 payment for Pathbuilder if you want the premium features).
I really would love to explore something "beyond" dnd (Sorry!) but I just don't have the time. The feat complexity does sound really appealing, because most often, I complain about how 5th Feats are basically worthless in the extreme (Inspiring Leader), or broken in the extreme (Sentinel).
I'm honestly hoping we can home brew some feats, because everything in 5th is dumb with a few minor exceptions.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I really would love to explore something "beyond" dnd (Sorry!) but I just don't have the time. The feat complexity does sound really appealing, because most often, I complain about how 5th Feats are basically worthless in the extreme (Inspiring Leader), or broken in the extreme (Sentinel).
I'm honestly hoping we can home brew some feats, because everything in 5th is dumb with a few minor exceptions.
Inspiring Leader is only worth (Party Member Count)(Charisma+Level)(Number of Short Rests per day +1) HP, assuming the party totals to 6 people or less.
So, you know, only worth about 32 HP per rest on a 16 Charisma Level 5 PC in a four-person party. Or about as much HP per rest as an entire extra 14 Con Wizard.
Stuff like Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master and the Archery Version (probably Archery Master?) should be class abilities rather than feats. Feats are optional in 5e but if you don't allow them for Fighters, they lose quite a lot of their potential utility. When you allow them for everyone, Spellcasters benefit bigtime as well, which they don't need. If you're making an ability or set of abilities you expect everyone taking a class to use, just build them into the class itself. Same goes for stuff like Hunter's Mark. Just make it a class ability. That way newbies won't build their character "wrong" because they didn't understand the intent, and will have a better game.
(Alternatively, design a more elegant system that doesn't require all these extra packages of abilities to make martials compete)
In the released notes, it appears most of the "feats" of 5th, and class abilities of 3rd, will be class features in 6th/Next. Like Cleave, Great Cleave going to Fighters/Barbarians, and Eleven Accuracy/Bountiful Luck going to Elves and Halflings respectively. I think dual wielding is potentially going to Rangers only, or it's just a feat to make it viable, and everyone else will get disadvantage.
I like the idea that you have leveled feats. I wonder how they will incorporate that into the non-martial classes?
Hottest of Hot takes: Warlocks, Sorcs, and Wizards all need to roll back into one class - MAGIC USER, and make them character creation options. Hell, throw Clerics and Druids in as well. Paladins stay in the Martial group, but I'm sick of the magic diversity causing chaos on feats and spells. OH, you can't take that feat, it's Warlock only, or Tiefling only.
Also, Keep Wizards a paper weight class, but give them 100% access to all spell, racial and feat choices regarding magic. You want to be the most powerful, you gotta take the weakest character in the lineup.
Meh. There was nothing there that interests me. I sometimes grab specific DnD books because I like specific things (Eberron). The PHB is sometimes interesting just to see how the rules are shook up. But this doesn't sound like anything worth exploring.
We have been playing another system (Das Schwarze Auge) for almost two decades and only recently got the 5e books for smaller games in between. Compared to our usual system D&D is relatively simple and less complex, so it's kind of a "we want a game night or two that are just simpler than usual" backup.
Regarding the edition switch I doubt we will get the new books, maybe (!) the Players handbook and just port over the bits and bops that we like as soon as they pop up online. As it is our system for me as a DM to relax, I'm handwaving a lot of things anyway.
But as I just read the most recent things here: looking at the feats of 5e at least I was also surprised (coming from another system) about the vast range of usefullness. From things like polearmsmaster etc. that are incredibly useful to others that are basically just fluff at best. Regarding how hard it is to get a feat at all that is pretty strange. Also I kind of miss... lets call it "racial feats" that lean into whatever race/background you have. Things like a feat that makes a high elf a little more "high-elfy" with additional cantrips etc. or increase the elemental/infernal aspect of Genasi/Tieflings showing that their heritage is starting to express itself more etc.
I'm not up to date with 5.5/6 but it would be cool if they adressed that.
Alternatively just as a homebrew I considered dividing the feats in "full feats" like polearmsmaster etc. and "half feats" like the more fluffy ones, so that if you decide to take one of the weak ones you can take another weak one on top.
I'm not currently playing D&D (and don't have any concrete plans to in the immediate future) but I am curious of any opinions regarding the changes. I've only personally ever looked at the dnd beyond free rules/SRD they just recently put up and even that was just cursory to see how many options they included (like subclasses, origins, feats, races, etc) compared with PHB.
While i've heard the book in nice from an art and layout perspective, but looking over what all was changed, i don't feel the need to update
from my 5e handbook in the off chance i play DnD instead of pathfinder 1e or something else my friends and I already have books for
I've honestly not heard anyone i know or game with mention picking it up either, instead talking about maybe giving pathfinder 2e a try
or seeing how things turn out for the second ed of starfinder
greenskin lynn wrote: While i've heard the book in nice from an art and layout perspective, but looking over what all was changed, i don't feel the need to update
from my 5e handbook in the off chance i play DnD instead of pathfinder 1e or something else my friends and I already have books for
I've honestly not heard anyone i know or game with mention picking it up either, instead talking about maybe giving pathfinder 2e a try
or seeing how things turn out for the second ed of starfinder
I picked one up because I had credit in the LGS to get it for free.
Your assessment is 100% correct.
The only noticeable change outside of the Feats was ‘races’.
They aren’t ‘races’ any longer and are now known as ‘species’.
Half elves and half orcs are no longer a thing either.
Outside of that, there’s no reason at all to change from 5E.
I won’t be getting the DMG or MM 6E for this reason.
warboss wrote: I'm not currently playing D&D (and don't have any concrete plans to in the immediate future) but I am curious of any opinions regarding the changes. I've only personally ever looked at the dnd beyond free rules/SRD they just recently put up and even that was just cursory to see how many options they included (like subclasses, origins, feats, races, etc) compared with PHB.
A few first impressions of the new PHB from a forever DM:
-There are things you might not want in your game that are now baked into the core rules. Feats and multiclassing are no longer "optional", firearms (that can shoot every turn), and PC races with flight stand out.
-Everyone starts with a feat tied to their background and humans start with an extra feat from any background. The racial attribute bonuses have also been moved into backgrounds. The more egregious feats have been toned down and I don't really have an issue with their power, but I'm not in love with the backgrounds being quite so important to character generation and would prefer those to be more of an RP choice.
-Weapon Mastery seems like the other major change, and the options seem to be very powerful. I think this will make a huge impact on the tabletop. All of the non and half casters (except Monk) get these benefits and everyone else can get them by taking a lv 4 feat. While intelligent weapon choice by an individual player will have a big impact on its own, these new rules heavily incentivize team tactics. It reminds me a lot of PF2 without the scaling and with magic that works.
I'm tempted to try it out on the tabletop as I find the weapon stuff interesting. Naturally, I'm less interested in their online ARR farming schemes.
Thanks. I watched a few videos explaining some of the changes once the PHB review embargo lifted and the weapon mastery sounded like the most interesting change to me personally. We always played with feats and multiclassing in my two 5e campaigns (about a year each) so the change to make them mandatory doesn't affect me. While 3/3.5 went overboard with feats (especially for the fighter), I do think the pendulum swung a bit too far in the opposite direction and background feats were a great addition once 5e introduced them a few years back with some of the expansion books.
