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

[Lanefan]

1. It's WOTC doing the defining. You said it yourself, you don't like WOTC defining the rogue. What happens to those who don't like how a class is defined?
2. It's WOTC telling everyone how the game should be played. Yeah, we've seen how well that goes over.

There has to be enough of a defined out-of-the-box framework to allow a playable game without any DM modifications or input; mostly for those who are either new to the game or who just want to drop the puck and play.

3. It disempowers DM's. Players will possibly demand default options be available. After all, they're default for a reason aren't they? So, why are you messing with the defaults?

This is where WotC have to be very careful, and very clear, to note that all contents in the books are to be treated as guidelines, and may be modified by the DM at her pleasure and convenience. They also need to make it abundantly clear that it is the DM's inalienable right to do so.

4. It forces game designers to conform to those defaults. You can't start dropping supplements and modules outside the defaults without causing all sorts of problems with marketing and whatnot.

Not necessarily. In 1e numerous adventure modules went outside the box, with the changes (new monsters, spells, sometimes abilities, etc.) explained in an appendix. Then again, 1e didn't have quite the splat disease later editions wound up with.

5. It simply adds fuel to the fire of DM's who insist that any player who wants to be, in your words, "a special snowflake" is a self-entitled, whiney git.

They can be special snowflakes if they like.

At someone else's table.

Lan-"throw another log on the fire"-efan

 

[Hussar]

There has to be enough of a defined out-of-the-box framework to allow a playable game without any DM modifications or input; mostly for those who are either new to the game or who just want to drop the puck and play.

Well, sure, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

Now, is having default class flavour enough out of the box framework? Presume for a moment that you have default class flavour and the varying casting styles do function. Is that enough to play out of the box?

Step 1. Choose background.
Step 2. Choose class.
Step 2.5 If you choose a caster class, also choose a casting style.

Note, for games without backgrounds, you can simply ignore Step 1.

IOW, does it have to be default that all wizards are vancian (for example) for the game to be playable? Or, can we have Wizard (choose casting style) as the default?

I mean, it works for the non-magic characters. The mechanical differentiation between the fighter classes is largely in feat choice. Fighters get broader choices, the ranger, paladin and barbarian get their choices made for them. Would it break the game to allow casters the same degree of customization?

They can be special snowflakes if they like.

At someone else's table.

I know you meant this as a joke, but, this sort of thing just flies right up my nose. Choosing mechanical elements for my character makes me unwelcome at your table? Really? Wanting something that is not specifically in the PHB makes me unwelcome at your table? Really? See, I don't think that's true for you Lanefan, you've talked enough about your groups that it's not a big deal if the player comes to you with an idea. But, look at the reactions of others here. I've been called whiney and self-entitled by at least three posters in this thread alone for wanting to have more choices during character generation. For even suggesting that players be allowed to choose the mechanics they want for their character.

I can see why some people really don't like point buy style games.

 

[MoonSong]

It's bad for the following reasons:

• 1. It's WOTC doing the defining. You said it yourself, you don't like WOTC defining the rogue. What happens to those who don't like how a class is defined?
• 2. It's WOTC telling everyone how the game should be played. Yeah, we've seen how well that goes over.
• 3. It disempowers DM's. Players will possibly demand default options be available. After all, they're default for a reason aren't they? So, why are you messing with the defaults?
• 4. It forces game designers to conform to those defaults. You can't start dropping supplements and modules outside the defaults without causing all sorts of problems with marketing and whatnot.
• 5. It simply adds fuel to the fire of DM's who insist that any player who wants to be, in your words, "a special snowflake" is a self-entitled, whiney git.

As far as the RPGA goes, I'd point out that the PHB defaults are NOT adhered to in organized play. Never have been. For one, RPGA play is almost always setting specific, which means different defaults right out of the gate. Additionally, rules that work in home play don't work in organized play. You only have to look at the play guides for RPGA, Pathfinder Society or the Encounters groups to realize that. So, no, having defaults actually doesn't help organized play, it actually hurts it because new players coming into organized play with default expectations are going to be in for a surprise when those defaults go out the window.

Yes, very aware of what they did in 4e, however what they did there wasn't taking a default, or defining a class, what they did was to straightjacket classes into solid stereotipes without giving any consideration to character flexibility. Having to choose between a bad inflexible default and no default is a false dicotomy, there can be good defaults too. (3e has some good defined classes with nice defaults which turn out ot be pretty flexible, not being confined into a rigid niche.) And that is why the playtest is good, it will allow them to find the good defaults.

And I know you actually posted it before, but what I'm saying is: you cannot balance vancian and spontaneous slots in a vacuum, you balance a vancian class with a spontaneous slot class, you balance the whole package, not just a simpe part, for example the 3.5 sorcerer and the 3.5 wizard could have been more balanced if the sorcerer had had two extra skill points, a d6, a medium bab, access to some more proficiencies and one more spell known each time she gained access to a new level (and overall) and the wizard had the max spells known per level of previous editions. In other words they would have been more balanced agaisnt each other if the designers had given each class it's own treatment by treating them as their own thing instead as treat them just the same "because both are mages".

 

[Hussar]

And I know you actually posted it before, but what I'm saying is: you cannot balance vancian and spontaneous slots in a vacuum, you balance a vancian class with a spontaneous slot class, you balance the whole package, not just a simpe part, for example the 3.5 sorcerer and the 3.5 wizard could have been more balanced if the sorcerer had had two extra skill points, a d6, a medium bab, access to some more proficiencies and one more spell known each time she gained access to a new level (and overall) and the wizard had the max spells known per level of previous editions. In other words they would have been more balanced agaisnt each other if the designers had given each class it's own treatment by treating them as their own thing instead as treat them just the same "because both are mages".

See, this is where I have a problem. You're trying to balance apples with oranges. Giving someone a +1 to hit and 2 more skill points per level isn't really the balancing factor. The balancing factor is limiting the number of spells the Vancian caster has access to and upping the sorcerers spells. Fiddle with that a bit more and you don't really have to worry about skill points and BAB.

And, if that's true, then it won't matter which class has which casting ability. A sorc could have Vancian casting and a wizard could have slot casting and it won't matter because both systems are balanced. Yup, slot caster gets a bit more oomph per day, but, Vancian boy has more breadth.

 

[MoonSong]

See, this is where I have a problem. You're trying to balance apples with oranges. Giving someone a +1 to hit and 2 more skill points per level isn't really the balancing factor. The balancing factor is limiting the number of spells the Vancian caster has access to and upping the sorcerers spells. Fiddle with that a bit more and you don't really have to worry about skill points and BAB.

And, if that's true, then it won't matter which class has which casting ability. A sorc could have Vancian casting and a wizard could have slot casting and it won't matter because both systems are balanced. Yup, slot caster gets a bit more oomph per day, but, Vancian boy has more breadth.

Giving sorcerers a little combat and skill bump allows them to need to relly a little less on spells, which in turn incentives them to pick more situational spells, that's why I suggested it. And yes it's apples and oranges, but let me tell you that different casting systems are lemons and oranges, they resemble each other in the surface and both are citrics rich on c-vitamin, but lemons are very sour while oranges are sweet. And if your argument about not being able to balance spells with other things is true, then it's impossible to have wizards and non-casters cohexist. Yes you cannot balance apples and oranges, or lemons and oranges, or lemons and apples, what you balance is the speciffic combinations of them when you make salads (the classes).

 

[Remathilis]

It's bad for the following reasons:

• 1. It's WOTC doing the defining. You said it yourself, you don't like WOTC defining the rogue. What happens to those who don't like how a class is defined?
• 2. It's WOTC telling everyone how the game should be played. Yeah, we've seen how well that goes over.
• 3. It disempowers DM's. Players will possibly demand default options be available. After all, they're default for a reason aren't they? So, why are you messing with the defaults?
• 4. It forces game designers to conform to those defaults. You can't start dropping supplements and modules outside the defaults without causing all sorts of problems with marketing and whatnot.
• 5. It simply adds fuel to the fire of DM's who insist that any player who wants to be, in your words, "a special snowflake" is a self-entitled, whiney git.

I dislike that WotC defines elves as tree-loving, 5-foot tall magical beings. What about Santa's elves? Kiebler Elves, and House Elves? Further, they shouldn't tell me what elven society is like (thats for the DM to decide) or what their racial traits are (MY elves have a +2 to Con, are small sized, gain a +2 to cobbling, and are proficient in scythes).
I also dislike the fact that Wizard's can't cast cure spells. How DARE WotC tell me how to play my wizard! I should be able to make him a healer without having to be a cleric and write "wizard" on my sheet! Wizards should be able to cast every spell in the game. HELLO! They're W I Z A R D S!
Further, I hate that dragon colors define their breath weapon and alignment. Just because my players hear there is a red dragon doesn't mean they should automatically load up on fire-resistance potions and assume its Evil. It disenfranchises me from making a LG green, fire-breathing dragon named Pete (which should be allowed in the rules as written dammit!)
Furthermore, I demand NOBODY ever make a supplement for Ravenloft, Al-Qadim, Dark Sun, Eberron, Dragon*Star, Spelljammer, Rokugan, Masque of the Red Death, or any such things ever again. I mean, can you imagine a supplement that redefined the core defaults for a setting? Crazy!
Unless I want to be a that awesome new race out of Supplement X. The DM can't tell me its not allowed on his world. Everything's Core! Everything's Core!

 

[Morrus]

[/LIST]

I dislike that WotC defines elves as tree-loving, 5-foot tall magical beings. What about Santa's elves? Kiebler Elves, and House Elves? Further, they shouldn't tell me what elven society is like (thats for the DM to decide) or what their racial traits are (MY elves have a +2 to Con, are small sized, gain a +2 to cobbling, and are proficient in scythes).
I also dislike the fact that Wizard's can't cast cure spells. How DARE WotC tell me how to play my wizard! I should be able to make him a healer without having to be a cleric and write "wizard" on my sheet! Wizards should be able to cast every spell in the game. HELLO! They're W I Z A R D S!
Further, I hate that dragon colors define their breath weapon and alignment. Just because my players hear there is a red dragon doesn't mean they should automatically load up on fire-resistance potions and assume its Evil. It disenfranchises me from making a LG green, fire-breathing dragon named Pete (which should be allowed in the rules as written dammit!)
Furthermore, I demand NOBODY ever make a supplement for Ravenloft, Al-Qadim, Dark Sun, Eberron, Dragon*Star, Spelljammer, Rokugan, Masque of the Red Death, or any such things ever again. I mean, can you imagine a supplement that redefined the core defaults for a setting? Crazy!
Unless I want to be a that awesome new race out of Supplement X. The DM can't tell me its not allowed on his world. Everything's Core! Everything's Core!

You're being a bit too sarcastic there, but I agree with your basic point. Either WotC is selling you a game, or it's selling you an instruction manual on how to make your own game. If I'm gonna make my own game, I'll make my own game. From WotC I want a pre-made game that I can play right away without assembly. And without having to write it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You're being a bit too sarcastic there, but I agree with your basic point. Either WotC is selling you a game, or it's selling you an instruction manual on how to make your own game. If I'm gonna make my own game, I'll make my own game. From WotC I want a pre-made game that I can play right away without assembly. And without having to write it.

I want something in the excluded middle. I want to play the full range of the main D&D styles easily, and many of the more niche styles with a little bit of thought and perhaps tweaking.

But mainly, I want the designers to really come to grips with the simple fact that if you design stuff in a vacuum, the options usually stink. (That is, most of them are either overpowered or goofy or lame or any number of bad things, but if you keep throwing enough stuff at the wall, some of it will stick.) Not one game that tries to be all things to all people, and thus fails at being too rigid and too compromised in the attempt. Not unlimited games "supported" by options picked via wall flinging and casual editorial choice with the groups expected to piece it together. Rather, a handful of selected options that are then pursued thoughtfully.

With a quality D&D, I should be able to run an old-school dungeon crawl, a 2E linear story, an event-based story, a stylized narrative, or a traditional sandbox--and the pieces more or less work. They might not work exactly the way I want without tweaking, and I might need to be selective on classes and magic systems and so forth, and I might even need to read some advice from the designers on how to do that, but I should at least be in the ballpark--without suddenly having wizards not working at all or rogues as after-thoughts or bards dominating one style and useless in another.

We'll never get that with one main default, because the default dominates the thoughts of the designers too much. We don't even need to have all of those, but we do need at least two.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, rougher than I meant, but the point is sound. I want WotC to sell me a complete, usable, and customizable game. I can make my own if I wanted to.

 

[Hussar]

And how is choosing casting mechanics suddenly making the game incomplete or unusable?

I'd point out something here too:

I dislike that WotC defines elves as tree-loving, 5-foot tall magical beings.

Considering the kvetching about WOTC breaking elves into Elf and Eladrin, I'd think that WOTC defining flavour might be problematic.