D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[Kinak]

Really, Kinak? Aren't you just as much of a whiner as any other player?

Actually, I pretty much solely GM these days, but I understand the cut of your jib.

Which method of healing do you like? Do you like the 4E healing surge mechanic? Or can you not stand that and only play the 3E style healing spell formula? So if Wizards includes rules that are reminiscent of BOTH styles of healing... one of which is specifically catering TO YOU and your needs... seems to me they're appeasing a whole heap of "whiners" that include you in their circle.

We don't really care about healing mechanics. We don't play 4e, but we've used Iron Heroes (using a similar "reserve point" mechanic) which works fine. And 3e works fine.

I'd rather have one set of healing rules that the rest of the game can be built assuming. I'd rather have one version of cure light wounds that works the way its intended than one that varies wildly in power between rules options or a bunch of different versions.

What you will catch me whining about is designers not having the courage of their convictions. I'd rather there be another game like 4e on the market that does something I don't want, but does it well, than yet another game that thinks it can make everyone happy.

WotC's absolutely welcome to enumerate every possible option in the rules. That's not a game I'm interested in, but it's a valid design.

But enumerating every option to appeal to players who want it their way or else? That's a game I'd dislike on a visceral level. If the direction of the game is determined by which groups can throw the biggest temper tantrums, nobody wins.

And I say that as someone capable of pretty epic tantrums

You basically would become a living example Groucho Marx's quotation...

"I wouldn't want to be a part of any group that would have me as a member."

Points for Groucho

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Remathilis]

What sort of munchkin would play a gunfighting paladin? Oh, that's right, one of the founders of the game! (Don Kaye, according to Canonfire.)

And what sort of spineless GM would permit such a PC? Oh yeah, Gary Gygax in his original Greyhawk campaign.

Which is why six-shooters have been on the weapon list of every edition of D&D from 1977 on.

There are two issues confusing each other here: the role of DM to create a unique setting and the role of the game designers to create a default setting. I don't find these two things incompatible; in fact I find them inseparable.

First, WotC has every right to say "In lieu of the DM saying otherwise, X is true of the game." to create a reasonable set of player expectations. Unless my DM says otherwise, I should assume mages use spell slots, clerics heal and thieves steal, dwarves like axes, elves like bows, goblins are squat and sour, and dragons come color coded for your convenience. This doesn't disqualify demon-men or construct PCs mind you; they can fit in the default setting right along with the traditional elements. (I'm actually a big advocate of tieflings, dragonborn and warlords in the PHB Next).

The point is WotC has a right to hand me a finished game; not "pick one from column A, one from column B, and apply your own special English to make D&D". WotC should give me options, but the dials need to have a starting point. Give the caster's unique casting methods and then let me switch, mix, and match them if I want. Give me a default healing mechanic and let me adjust how lethal I want it. Let me dial up or down the complexity of combat. Don't just give me three spell systems in one chapter, two combat systems in another, and four healing mechanics in a third and say "pick the one that fits your game." Do it yourself PHBs won't fix the problem.

HOWEVER, I think if the DM is the kind who is prone to tinkering, then that is fine too. If he want's to mix and match magic systems (and even open it up to PC choice) he can. He want's a game that's nasty, brutish and short with lethal combat and no magic? He can by twisting X, Y, and Z knobs from their default and disallowing A, B, and C options. And he's not being wrong for doing it.

Next CAN be a unifier here; make the defaults mimic older, "Classic" D&D and then allow the dials and options twist to create any mix of older, newer, or unique you want. Why is this so controversial? It should be a no brainer except to some people who think the dials should be either in the hands of the players or set automatically to 11?

 

[timASW]

Wait - so vampires aren't a fantasy archetype, either, because villagers exhumed and staked/burned the hearts of corpses they thought were cursing their community into the mid-20th century?

The key difference being that STEAM POWER is REAL. And vampires are NOT. So one is science and one is fiction.
Now if there were actually vampires running around (probably suing humans for the staking of their ancestors) then you would have a point. But there arent, and you dont.

Draconians in (late) 2e Forgotten Realms, tieflings in 2e Planescape (and 3e FR as well as Planescape) and Warforged in 3.5e Eberron would seem to comprehensively refute your assertion, here. Unless you have been living in an alternative universe where those things never happened?

Except that campaign settings are not core rules. They are optional settings. So again you have no point.

And Klingons are orcs with a refluff and high technology.

No they're not. Orcs are filthy, chaotic freebooters. Klingons are an advanced, honorable warrior race.

 

[timASW]

I'm still left curious as to how something like Warforged and Tieflings can't be in D&D, but crashed spaceships,-O

Never heard of it.

gelatinous cubes

Ridiculous creature up there with the flumph, never used one and dont plan too. No one has ever complained about the lack of them either.

Remo Williams monks

,

Apparently a movie, never saw it. But since pretty much everyone bags on the monk probably not the best example.

baby balrogs as PCs

Stupid idea, which was the whole point of this in the first place

,

and mechanical robot submarines can be.

covered that in getting rid of eberron. Those subs can rust right along with the lightning trains.

It's like, only letting one group of people who sat around and thought up cool stuff dictate what cool stuff is everyone else is allowed to think up

Not at all, theres plenty of room for all that stuff.... in other games. Just like orcs as plants are a cool idea, for warhammer, and borg are a neat idea, for sci-fi, and while whiny immortals are NOT a cool idea for vampire the whatever, it seems to appeal to enough to people to keep the books in print. But those "vampires" dont belong in D&D anymore then sparkly whiny immortals do.

 

[Obryn]

Never heard of it.

Ridiculous creature up there with the flumph, never used one and dont plan too. No one has ever complained about the lack of them either.

Apparently a movie, never saw it. But since pretty much everyone bags on the monk probably not the best example.

Stupid idea, which was the whole point of this in the first place

covered that in getting rid of eberron. Those subs can rust right along with the lightning trains.

Not at all, theres plenty of room for all that stuff.... in other games. Just like orcs as plants are a cool idea, for warhammer, and borg are a neat idea, for sci-fi, and while whiny immortals are NOT a cool idea for vampire the whatever, it seems to appeal to enough to people to keep the books in print. But those "vampires" dont belong in D&D anymore then sparkly whiny immortals do.

The problem is - everything you're saying doesn't belong in D&D has been in D&D for 30+ years, already.

So in order ... (1) Expedition to the Barrier Peaks goes back to 1980. Crashed spaceship, laser guns, etc. (2) gelatinous cubes and the like go back to the very first campaigns, mid-70's. (3) Monks were put into D&D specifically because one of the players liked the Destroyer novels; they've been a part ever since. (4) Again, goes back to the mid-70's. (5) The robot sub is the Apparatus of Kwalish; check your 1e DMG.

How in the world can you say stuff that was in D&D back in the first decade isn't a part of D&D?

-O

 

[DEFCON 1]

How in the world can you say stuff that was in D&D back in the first decade isn't a part of D&D?

-O

They probably just weren't a part of "his D&D". And his D&D *is* D&D in timASW's opinion I imagine.

Thankfully though... D&DN won't be "timASW's D&D".

 

[Hussar]

Me, I'm still baffled as to how saying that DM's should determine the baselines for their campaigns, and not WOTC, is somehow whiney player entitlement.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Me, I'm still baffled as to how saying that DM's should determine the baselines for their campaigns, and not WOTC, is somehow whiney player entitlement.

I think there's just disagreement on how to go about doing so. Honestly, it's just as easy to say "The DM picks a method for each spellcasting class" and "Wizards are Vancian, and Bards are spell points. If the DM wants to change them, awesome: here's how." Because either way you have to list the classes, and the methods.

I don't really care which way they go, personally. It amounts to the same thing, and I don't even need the books to tell me it's okay to change things (though they should, and it should give some guidance, too). But, your gripe here? Not on base at all, in my opinion. As always, play what you like

 

[Balesir]

The key difference being that STEAM POWER is REAL. And vampires are NOT. So one is science and one is fiction.
Now if there were actually vampires running around (probably suing humans for the staking of their ancestors) then you would have a point. But there arent, and you dont.

OK, so the goalposts have shifted such that it's now not "stuff that has been taken seriously in the past" that should be excluded from fantasy, but "stuff that is considered/is proven to be "scientific" that should be excluded from fantasy? Or is it "stuff that is a part of the real world" should be excluded from fantasy? Either way, I don't see much mileage, personally. Game worlds with no gravity or stars or day and night don't appeal to me much. And I generally prefer basic creature metabolism to work in a vaguely real-ish way, too, to pick just one example.

If you have an actual sound definition for what you want arbitrarily to exclude, please get back to me. Otherwise, your current examples look a lot like random bias.

Except that campaign settings are not core rules. They are optional settings. So again you have no point.

So, what you object to is them being in a thing labelled "Players' Handbook", not to them being in the game. Sounds to me like WotC already have the perfect plan to cover this one - don't bring out any book called the "Players' Handbook"!

No they're not. Orcs are filthy, chaotic freebooters. Klingons are an advanced, honorable warrior race.

Sounds like the spin doctors got to you good!

 

[timASW]

really, whiny immortal sparkly vampires have been in D@D for 30 years? Do point out edward or louie from 1e for me. I am desparate to see them.

And orcs as plants, show me that in D@D, not warhammer, D@D,,

And Borg, do please show me some 30 year old D@D borg. Pretty please.


Otherwise kindly quit inventing defenses for this nonsense. Because they simply dont exist and you dont know what your talking about.

LOL and really, some crappy, obscure artifact (a one time, massively rare feat of epic magic) as an example for a core class? dont make me laugh. Maybe we should have a core class with an orb of dragonkind or a sphere of annihilation as a starting feature? I mean they were both core at one point right?

If you were reaching any farther your arms would fall off.