D&D 5E Is infinite diversity in infinite combinations .... a terrible thing in D&D?

[schnee]

Ah, see, now you're making the mistake of assuming that everybody plays "home" games. I happen to play a lot of Adventurer's League, and anything that is valid in AL is valid at any AL table. DM's do not have the option of saying, "Sorry, no Drow at my table." So if the rules are a "full" larder than any AL game can consist of any random combination of those ingredients.

I put in too much stuff to make a larger point that you are now focusing in on. That is not the point.

The point is that people want a much more restricted game.

The game now mechanically allows female halfling fighters to not suck. This is what's distasteful, and is being - unfairly, in bad faith - exaggerated into 'WOOHOO ANYTHING GOES!!!!1'.

Surely (hopefully?) you don't think that D&D should be so polymorphic that it can faithfully replicate Lovecraftian, Gothic Horror, Star Wars, and cyberpunk genres? If not, then you acknowledge that games shouldn't try to be everything.

If my point was about those, I would have mentioned them.

And once we're in agreement on that, the breadth that any one game should cover is a matter of opinion. And between the two positions of "it lessens my experience to have all these extra elements present" and "it lessens my experience to be prevented from using those extra elements" there is no moral upper ground. Each side is putting their own preferences ahead of others.

Ah, NOW I see where you are trying to paint this. And you are missing the point entirely.

The new players want to say 'at my game I want a Female Halfling Fighter to be as viable as any other gender/race/class.' The new players appreciate rules that are flexible enough to allow those kinds of character choices.

The old players are freaking out and morally judging.
The old players want to roll back the rules to bias against that kind of play to make certain types mechanically deficient.

And, people like you are trying to make it a false equivalence.

 

[BoldItalic]

<snip>
The old players are freaking out and morally judging.
The old players want to roll back the rules to bias against that kind of play to make certain types mechanically deficient.
<snip>

Er ... not all of us. I'm an 'old player' in both senses and I'm in the 'no restrictions' camp.

I'm old enough to remember when only Elves could take the 'Elf' class, but I don't especially want to go back there. I prefer the richness of 5e.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The new players want to say 'at my game I want a Female Halfling Fighter to be as viable as any other gender/race/class.' The new players appreciate rules that are flexible enough to allow those kinds of character choices.

The old players are freaking out and morally judging.
The old players want to roll back the rules to bias against that kind of play to make certain types mechanically deficient.

Ah, I see what you're saying. I was confused because, honestly, I don't really notice anybody arguing that Female Halfling Fighters shouldn't be viable. I thought you were making the more common argument, which would be about (for example) half-Goliath dex-build warlock/paladins dual-wielding hand crossbows. It's not about gender equity, it's about whether or not the combinatorics of every single option is a good or bad thing.

And, people like you are trying to make it a false equivalence.

That makes me giggle.

 

[Krachek]

I bet with a little effort you could pull some syllables out and make this a killer haiku.

Twenty smile,
One tear,
Happy game.

 

[schnee]

Ah, I see what you're saying. I was confused because, honestly, I don't really notice anybody arguing that Female Halfling Fighters shouldn't be viable. I thought you were making the more common argument, which would be about (for example) half-Goliath dex-build warlock/paladins dual-wielding hand crossbows. It's not about gender equity, it's about whether or not the combinatorics of every single option is a good or bad thing.

Huh, this is where I'm confused too, because I've only once saw one of those in person. I only see them frequently in theory crafting in online message boards. Or used as a straw man argument as denigration of moving beyond the old-school standard stereotypes.

As far as those bizarre combinations, if you give a system flexible enough for someone to make their character customized with taste and imagination, you create the possibility for that half-Goliath.

Also, sure, if you have a bunch of wild and crazy stuff in AL games, so what? It's a game of imagination. Remember, AD&D had modules with robots, original AD&D players brought in Boot Hill gunfighters, and the OD&D world was an absolutely bizarre kitchen sink of weirdness. This drive to make D&D 'Serious' and 'Minimal' is a later development, and I think the game is worse off for it.

That makes me giggle.

Yeah, in hindsight, it should.

 

[schnee]

Ah, I see what you're saying. I was confused because, honestly, I don't really notice anybody arguing that Female Halfling Fighters shouldn't be viable. I thought you were making the more common argument, which would be about (for example) half-Goliath dex-build warlock/paladins dual-wielding hand crossbows. It's not about gender equity, it's about whether or not the combinatorics of every single option is a good or bad thing.

Huh, this is where I'm confused too, because I've only once saw one of those in person. I only see them frequently in theory crafting in online message boards. Or used as a straw man argument as denigration of moving beyond the old-school standard stereotypes.

As far as those bizarre combinations, if you give a system flexible enough for someone to make their character customized with taste and imagination, you create the possibility for that half-Goliath.

Also, sure, if you have a bunch of wild and crazy stuff in AL games, so what? It's a game of imagination. Remember, AD&D had modules with robots, original AD&D players brought in Boot Hill gunfighters, and the OD&D world was an absolutely bizarre kitchen sink of weirdness. This drive to make D&D 'Serious' and 'Minimal' is a later development, and I think the game is worse off for it.

That makes me giggle.

Yeah, in hindsight, it should.

 

[The Old Crow]

I hate the speshul class open only to elves or dwarves thing with a passion. Why can't a human raised by elves be that class, or a halfling reflavor it to speshul halfling flavor class, or someone who finds favor with elves later multiclass into speshulness?

I am all for restricting what races fit into a campaign, and all for restricting what classes fit into a campaign. Restricting races from being some classes mostly seems arbitrary to me.

 

[Ancalagon]

The point I am trying to get across is that all games have restrictions. ALL of them. Let's give a concrete example.

I am running a warhammer frpg 2nd ed game. You want to play a gnome paladin. Well ... you can't. There are no gnomes in warhammer, and there isn't any paladin class either (... the system doesn't even use classes) These restrictions are part of how the game is built. They were put in place by the game designers.

But if as a gm, I want to run a 5e system warhammer game, I'm a bad person for not allowing gnomes?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[BoldItalic]

The point I am trying to get across is that all games have restrictions. ALL of them. Let's give a concrete example.

I am running a warhammer frpg 2nd ed game. You want to play a gnome paladin. Well ... you can't. There are no gnomes in warhammer, and there isn't any paladin class either (... the system doesn't even use classes) These restrictions are part of how the game is built. They were put in place by the game designers.

But if as a gm, I want to run a 5e system warhammer game, I'm a bad person for not allowing gnomes?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

A troop (or possibly a trope) of gnome paladins batter down your DM screen and smite you with their Holy Avengers, crying "Woe unto the infidel who believeth not that we exist!".

 

[Ancalagon]

A troop (or possibly a trope) of gnome paladins batter down your DM screen and smite you with their Holy Avengers, crying "Woe unto the infidel who believeth not that we exist!".

This is a funny post, and I had a funny reply, but it then did make me realize something important. A restriction that should be avoided at all cost is one that forbids what the player *is*. So if I had a blind player at my table and said player wanted to play a blind swordsman, I would bend over backward to make that possible. I think this is an important principle to follow.

So... if an actual gnome showed up and wanted to play a gnome in warhammer, I would make that happen