D&D 5E "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.

[iserith]

Don't forget the time wasting pixel bitching and gotchas! Perception cuts out the middleman and bridges the gap between a potentially poor description of a scene and the fact that I'm not actually there.

Man, I hate "old skool" play (ie, metagaming and not actually roleplaying the character you rolled, but just a super version of you with physical stats bolted on).

Perhaps there is a middle ground where DMs provide reasonably good descriptions of the scene and players are reasonably specific as to their goals and approaches, and the results of said approaches mean that sometimes you roll and sometimes you just succeed outright without reference to the mechanics. Where your character build is important, but so too are the things you choose to do in the context of the game world. Where "pixel bitching" is not really an issue and, due to the DM telegraphing hidden threats, that "gotchas" aren't a thing either.

 

[iserith]

Sorry but i never, not once, called what i was referring to as milestone xp as referenced "n the DMG" and as noted pointed that out.

Your choosing to assume that to create a false impression... Thats just you.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

You referred to milestone XP as something that it wasn't. I pointed out that you were wrong as the DMG defines milestone XP quite clearly. It's not complicated and it's okay to be wrong sometimes.

 

[5ekyu]

You referred to milestone XP as something that it wasn't. I pointed out that you were wrong as the DMG defines milestone XP quite clearly. It's not complicated and it's okay to be wrong sometimes.

What is not complicated (at least to some) is that milestone Xp is defined in different products differently, So, while you may want to pretend there is one source for what milestone xp is or how it is applied and then somehow morph that into anyone else referencing milestone Xp being wrong if they are using one of the others... thats just so... you.

But thats fine.

Embrace the you that you are.

But when someone references multiple different cites of types of Xp etc... and acknowledges its not all the same across all the different sources in 5e, trying to portray them wrong because they don't stick to the one you choose... thats again... so you.

have fun.

 

[iserith]

What is not complicated (at least to some) is that milestone Xp is defined in different products differently, So, while you may want to pretend there is one source for what milestone xp is or how it is applied and then somehow morph that into anyone else referencing milestone Xp being wrong if they are using one of the others... thats just so... you.

What is referenced as Milestone XP in HotDQ is wrong. That product was released prior to the DMG and presumably before the rules were set in stone. This may also be why HotDQ is widely criticized as being prone to errors and inconsistencies, especially as it relates to XP and encounter difficulty. As [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, HotDQ's method is actually Story-Based Advancement (DMG pg. 261). Which isn't what you use either, apparently.

 

[Satyrn]

Don't forget the time wasting pixel bitching and gotchas! Perception cuts out the middleman and bridges the gap between a potentially poor description of a scene and the fact that I'm not actually there.

My table barely uses Perception for anything and yet we don't see the pixel bitching.

 

[Lanefan]

To me, "old skool" play is synonymous with metagaming and not actually roleplaying the character you rolled, but just a super version of you with physical stats bolted on.

That's how I see "new skool" play - ever-increasing references to meta-mechanics (of which Perception is but one) and consequently less actual roleplaying of the character you rolled - which, ideally, shouldn't really involve dice at all except in combat.

 

[Satyrn]

Old skool. New skool.

Me, I'm high skool. *puff*

 

[Charlaquin]

It’s odd to me, a person who hasn’t played any version of D&D older than 3.0, that the way I prefer to run the game is referred to as “old skool.” Particularly when I learned it from the most recent edition of the game. Though, I have heard that 5e feels very “old skool” in a lot of ways, which makes me curious about trying out some older editions, if I ever had the opportunity.

 

[JonnyP71]

From the general tone of your posts here, I think you'd quite like it.

I find it somewhat disappointing that an expectation that the players actually pay attention to detailed descriptions, and interact with said descriptions is referred to as 'pixel-bitching'. Some of the greatest D&D adventures ever written have very intricate, beautiful area descriptions, evoking well researched mythos, and creating some highly entertaining puzzles, and to dismiss them in such a way is simply crude.

If 'new skool' is to ignore that and just bash bash bash waiting for something to set off spidey-senses, then I'm proud to be old skool..

 

[iserith]

From the general tone of your posts here, I think you'd quite like it.

I find it somewhat disappointing that an expectation that the players actually pay attention to detailed descriptions, and interact with said descriptions is referred to as 'pixel-bitching'. Some of the greatest D&D adventures ever written have very intricate, beautiful area descriptions, evoking well researched mythos, and creating some highly entertaining puzzles, and to dismiss them in such a way is simply crude.

If 'new skool' is to ignore that and just bash bash bash waiting for something to set off spidey-senses, then I'm proud to be old skool..

So far as I can tell, it's mostly a rejection of particularly odious DM behaviors that aren't necessarily a reflection of the approach, but of the DM's personality. The behaviors then get conflated with the approach and generalizations start getting made when something smacks of the approach, even if the person speaking of the approach exhibits none of those behaviors.