D&D General What do you NOT want systems for?

[Vaalingrade]

I hate hate hate inventory systems that primarily use weights. Give me slots or something similar.

This is a place where literally nothing would be better. Who cares if the magic elf is carrying one extra feather more than they should, or the actual, factual spawn of devils can walk around with a couple of anvils in his pocket?

 

[Vaalingrade]

What, you don't also ask your players to perform a long jump in person every time their character jumps a ravine? Or take a trip to your local climbing gym when they attempt to traverse a cliff?

I drop a Dodge Dart on them and demand that they live when a giant hits them with a club.

 

[Baron Opal II]

For social issues I would prefer minimal to no rules, but I would definitely want guidelines or touchstones. For example, a reasonable bribe is a week's pay to look the other way, a month's pay to help, and a year's pay to just abandon your post and move to another village. Roll well on Charisma can adjust some value.

A lot of Wilderness rules might be obviated if you could explain what Lewis and Clarke experienced, and then give some more basic rules to start from. I think a lot of rules become useless when they address real issues and players don't have the first clue what would be reasonable.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Mmm, good old fashioned unfairness.

I like how this is where player agency matters, when it's actually hurting players. That and the antagonistic dichotomy of Skilled Play and Roleplaying. You can play a combat monster or a spellcaster without having to be able to do that in real life, but talking? Nope. You better be naturally gifted in speech if you want to be a diplomancer.

Player skill affects all areas of the game. It cannot be eliminated. It is not unique to social situations. How do you account more tactically skilled players being advantaged in combat?

In the game players have to make decisions. Many of those decisions will affect how well they perform in the game. How do you eliminate that without eliminating the player ability to make decisions?

 

[Vaalingrade]

A lot of Wilderness rules might be obviated if you could explain what Lewis and Clarke experienced

Hireling rules to hire someone who knows what they're doing to do all the work?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Player skill affects all areas of the game. It cannot be eliminated. It is not unique to social situations. How do you account more tactically skilled players being advantaged in combat?

I still have them make attack rolls.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I still have them make attack rolls.

Sure. And a player who knows how to position might be making those rolls with an advantage, gets to prock opportunity attacks more often, take advantage of sentinel, make sure more enemies fall in their AOE and countless other things.

Like I said, I'm fine with with social skill rolls existing. But you still need to provide a reason for the NPC to do what you want, and yes, a better reason will get a lower DC.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You've met 5e, right? You don't have to be good at tactics to get advantage and in fact, being good at tactics does nothing for you as advantage doesn't stack.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Or they use the safe space of the game to learn and test out their social skills.

Irrelevant for a number of people. Social anxiety, ADHD, and other issues simply can't be treated with exposure therapy, no matter how cool it would be if you could.

But, of course, calling for cutting out systems that are helpful to others is quite easy to ask for when one doesn't need the benefit oneself.

 

[Vaalingrade]

A game where people are forcing you to improv is also NOT a safe space.