D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[FitzTheRuke]

And I'm getting questioned over why I think that DM's are only doing this to exercise authority over the game? When every example of players in this thread is players being completely unreasonable and every poor, put upon DM is only trying their level best to bring an interesting game.

Extremes are just how internet arguments read - whether they are intentionally written to mean the extreme or not.

Your posts make it sound like all DMs are vicious tyrants, and @tetrasodium's posts (for example, sorry to call you out like this Tetra!) sound like all Players are entitled whiners (and that the current system promotes this).

But I think that it's more likely that both of you are saying, "I don't like it when THIS happens and I will advocate against it".

Which, in itself, is an absolutely reasonable take. I don't like entitled players OR tyrant DMs! But you'll probably find me arguing with BOTH of you if your wording makes it seem like most games have these problems, and I'll argue even more vehemently if you make it sound like MY game has either of those problems.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What part of general did you not get. You generally said, "It's also not a lack of integrity to say there's a tabaxi enclave out there somewhere so a player who wants to play one to do so, but that's always too far." and "Rules for thee, but not for me."

General statements include me. You are painting our side with broad brushes that just don't apply. They would apply to some specific individuals, but would not apply to even a majority of those arguing my side of things.

I'd really rather talk about the subject than care about exact wording that can be used to derail that discussion.

 

[Lanefan]

What do you mean with "smackdown hammer" ?

Flat-out saying "no" and then hardening your line from there if they persist.

Yeah. As if all of them are obvious...

Indeed, but some are. In 3e, for example, it takes exactly one look at Polymorph to realize it's broken as written.

The less-obvious or very niche exploits can take a long time to arise, if ever. The trick is to be willing to rule against them while at the same time praising the player's creative thinking.

Not the ever increasing DCs of late 3.5, but just using lower DCs and asking players to take 10 and 20 frequently so usually things just work. And suddenly fighters had enough skill points. Rogues too. Because they did not have to max skills to be useful.

Where to me, take-20 is an awful rule because it forces a binary resolution: succeed or fail. No room for nuance. It also doesn't account for someone just "not having it" that day; because to me rolling 20 means you've hit the peak of your possible performance at [whatever you're doing], or that you've got lucky and done something that on most days you couldn't; and that doesn't happen every time you try something even if you keep trying for quite a while.

Which is why I prefer the 'one roll is all you get' method.

Oh I got sidetracked. Was it this thread, where we talked about background features? If so, I think the most important thing to remember is that as a DM you actually want the players to win and have fun.

Nope.

I want them to have fun. Winning is entirely optional.

Instead of shutting down features and combinations, you need to make the players trist you, that you won't "screw" them, so they never feel the need to break your game.

Where I see it as the player's job - in any game or sport - to push the rules to (and maybe beyond) their limits; while it's the job of the referee-umpire-DM to enforce said rules and, if necessary, penalize those who break them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Where I see it as the player's job - in any game or sport - to push the rules to (and maybe beyond) their limits; while it's the job of the referee-umpire-DM to enforce said rules and, if necessary, penalize those who break them.

Ok. That is really not a game I want to be in anymore.

 

[Lanefan]

Bingo. This is where I get off the train. No. There doesn't need to "always" be a chance of failure. One of the best rules in 3e was Take 20. 5e incorporates the same idea in that if there's no actual consequence for failure, don't roll.

As noted just above, IMO take-20 was one of the worst rules in 3e. Failure is in itself a consequence, as is "nothing happens" or "you're stuck, try something else".

I have a power that makes this a foregone conclusion. It only works in this one, very specific, very narrow situation. There are a thousand other things I'll have to make checks and fail at that you can narrate to your heart's content.

Letting the players just win sometimes without futzing about with a bunch of pointless crap is the best DMing advice I have ever received.

I don't disagree on letting the players just win sometimes, other than I'd add "when it makes sense" in there somewhere; because hard-coding it as a written rule invites situations where it doesn't make sense and then paints the DM as the bad guy for denying it in those cases.

 

[tetrasodium]

Extremes are just how internet arguments read - whether they are intentionally written to mean the extreme or not.

Your posts make it sound like all DMs are vicious tyrants, and @tetrasodium's posts (for example, sorry to call you out like this Tetra!) sound like all Players are entitled whiners (and that the current system promotes this).

But I think that it's more likely that both of you are saying, "I don't like it when THIS happens and I will advocate against it".

Which, in itself, is an absolutely reasonable take. I don't like entitled players OR tyrant DMs! But you'll probably find me arguing with BOTH of you if your wording makes it seem like most games have these problems, and I'll argue even more vehemently if you make it sound like MY game has either of those problems.

I was responding to a comment made about a shift in frequency after lurking for tens of pages & that has mostly been my level of participation in the thread. However the post I'm quoting is kind of demonstrating the point in this larger discussion where the primary point of contention over hundreds of pages is if it is possible or even reasonable for a GM to ever declare a background feature doesn't work due to circumstances beyond the player's ken even if that's only a sometimes occasion. In modern d&d we've reached a point where there is no line the other side of the gm screen can cross that does not revoke any benefit of the doubt should someone criticize the lines being crossed.

I'm going to question where that apology is coming from though by asking what you felt was in question enough to spend so long giving a pass to the other side of the fence long enough to notice that the call for absolute guarantee of success no matter the in game circumstances might be a bit past reasonable in ways that deserve being questioned? That extreme benefit of the doubt being applied unevenly is why 3009 happens as described.

 

[Lanefan]

Because your examples are all pointless? They have nothing to do with the actual adventure that I sat down to play?

"Adventure that [you] sat down to play"?

I suspect right there is a source of the disconnect between you and some of us, in that for me (and others?) it's more like "Campaign that I sat down to play"; and campaigns are made up of many things including adventures, journeys, downtime, side quests, red herrings, NPC and setting interactions, and a bunch of other stuff above and beyond just "get in, do the adventure (or AP), and get out".

Also no wonder that people's games fall apart all the time. Remember that? Remember how virtually no one actually manages to complete a campaign?

I've done the "journey" a million times. You know what I haven'T done? Completed a campaign very often. Forty years of gaming and I've seen campaigns come to an actual conclusion maybe, maybe six or seven times. And I know I'm not alone here. The hobby is littered with the corpses of dead campaigns that died without crossing the finish line.

Maybe if DM's learned to pull their thumb out and get going once in a while, campaigns would actually conclude regularly instead of once in a blue moon.

A lot of campaigns don't have a hard-set "finish line". They're open-ended.

And I'd posit a reason why some hard-line AP campaigns don't get to the end is that partway through the players get bored of that story and want their characters to do something else in the setting, and the DM either can't or won't deal with such a left turn.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Where I see it as the player's job - in any game or sport - to push the rules to (and maybe beyond) their limits; while it's the job of the referee-umpire-DM to enforce said rules and, if necessary, penalize those who break them.

And what about the places where the rules are at loggerheads with fun? Which one wins?

 

[Lanefan]

And what about the places where the rules are at loggerheads with fun? Which one wins?

Situationally dependent, and dealt with case by case.

 

[James Gasik]

With regards to take 20. What this is intended to represent is the idea of spending time to gain success. Often times, there are rolls that there isn't a real reason not to allow a retry of. In AD&D, for example, there was often a "you tried once, you fail, you need to come back when you get better" present.

To borrow from Lanefan, the problem with this approach is the is no room for nuance. It also doesn't account for someone just "not having it" that day. Telling someone to come back next level, or if you inexplicably raise an ability score, when in reality it might just require more time to fix. I mean, think about a car repair. Imagine if an auto shop fails to fix a problem on their first attempt, and then calls you to say you need to go to another mechanic, because having tried once, they can't do so again any time soon!

I've had the unfortunate cause to hire a locksmith a few times, and if one approach doesn't work, they tried another.

Take 20 is simply saying "we know you'll get this eventually. But do you have the time to keep trying?" Where this breaks down isn't in the rule itself, it's working as intended.

It's when there is no penalty for taking that time. In the original Neverwinter Nights, you could just have your Rogue take 20 on any lock they came upon. The game didn't progress, you weren't going to get a random encounter. You just had to wait a bit until your Rogue said "it's done!" and proceed. This is not what should be happening!

If you have all the time in the world, you probably shouldn't be rolling in the first place. Take 20 is made with an expectation that taking 20 x as long to perform a task is a cost. You have spell durations ticking down, there's random encounters, patrols, maybe even a timetable of events, or possibly even a "doom clock" (not a fan of these, but there are sometimes reasons to use them).