D&D 5E First experience with 5th edition and Lost Mines of Phandelver (no spoilers)

Bigkahuna said:

I don't think GM's are in their right to simply declare "these are the rules in my game" without discussion.

Click to expand...

That is a discussion. Ok, a short one. You want to run a particular game, a particular way, and you let players know what that is so they don't find themselves participating in something they later find unappealing.

CapnZapp said:

Thank you for saying out loud what lots of other posters try to hide behind supposedly rational arguments.

This is of course, a completely unsustainable argument.

Like magic item creation is some sort of special snowflake. "You can get whatever you want, as long as it isn't that". "I have the strength to ignore any optional rule, with that as the sole exception". "Even if it isn't core, my players will force me to treat it as core".

People are selfish and they rather deny others (me) what they want and need outright, rather than to have to say "no" to their own players.

That is the entirety of the opposition towards sane magic item creation rules. Thank you for being the first one to say it out loud (that I am aware of), even after months of arguing here on ENWorld.

Click to expand...

I don't think that position is any stronger than mine. And obviously I believe mine is stronger. For me, it is selfish to add materials to the game that will negatively impact the play experiences of others, simply because you can't be bothered to house rule it yourself. I have hinted at a good argument for why it will negatively impact the play experience of others. Allow me to expand it.

The people who want more detailed magic item creation rules are primarily those who like it from 3e and 4e. In 3e and 4e the magic item economy and wealth by level were assumed parts of the game. Based on human psychology, if those rules are included, most of those players are going to transfer those assumptions over to the game. If that is a significant amount of the player base, then it will become part of the standard assumptions of the edition, which everyone else will then have to either deal with or actively over-rule and re-educate their players on how that isn't the way it works in their campaign.

Now, if those players are the vast majority of the player base, then it probably should be include. I submit that in my opinion those players make up neither the vast majority nor an insignificant portion of the player based. In other words, they make up a percentage of the player base in that exact category of which I am discussing that would be able to impose something on the rest of the game that would be resented by and detrimental to others' experience.

I consider imposition more selfish than deprivation. Maybe that is the root of disagreement.

Sword of Spirit said:

...

For me, it is selfish to add materials to the game that will negatively impact the play experiences of others, simply because you can't be bothered to house rule it yourself. I have hinted at a good argument for why it will negatively impact the play experience of others. Allow me to expand it.

The people who want more detailed magic item creation rules are primarily those who like it from 3e and 4e. In 3e and 4e the magic item economy and wealth by level were assumed parts of the game. Based on human psychology, if those rules are included, most of those players are going to transfer those assumptions over to the game. If that is a significant amount of the player base, then it will become part of the standard assumptions of the edition, which everyone else will then have to either deal with or actively over-rule and re-educate their players on how that isn't the way it works in their campaign.
...
I consider imposition more selfish than deprivation. Maybe that is the root of disagreement.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting way to put it. Also in favour of your argument is the fact that those that might be put upon by these things are much more likely to be those that "bought into" 5e's implicit and explicit design assumptions wholeheartedly, and who helped 5e to become successful in the first place.

Making compromises to appease criticisms and to expand the base is fine, and often necessary, but needs to be weighed against the cost to those that are happy with the system and already supporting and expanding it. It is also important to take into account the success of something while it still remains under the original design assumptions, and if (as is the case with 5e) it is very successful and growing, then altering the original fundamentals becomes a less logical act. If something is not successful, then it is a different situation and alienating some of the original user-base may be more tolerable, in order to "save" the system.