D&D 5E Skills Should Be Core

[Talath]

That is weird, but then, those are just published adventures. I'm sure published adventures and organized play do continue to use dungeons and other retro elements. I kind of expect them to be the lowest common denominator, rather than doing anything creative or unconventional. I hope (and believe) that most DMs that run their own home games have higher aspirations.

Perhaps you should not talk about a play-style that is not your preferred style in a demeaning way.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Perhaps you should not talk about a play-style that is not your preferred style in a demeaning way.

A variety of things might be considered playstyles or elements thereof, but adventure products are not a playstyle. My general opinion of their quality and worth is quite low and I don't think that a critical opinion is demeaning. I'm sure the authors of Paizo adventurers will sleep fine despite my discontent. I'm not suggesting any judgments about people who use those things; I'm sure some of them have good reasons and there are a variety of ways to DM by using uninspired premade material and adding one's own spin.

Ultimately, my point was that published adventures don't represent what D&D (or PF or what have you) is about. The actual rules do.

 

[Hussar]

Wow. How arrogant is that? People who want dungeons are the "lowest common denominator"? That anyone who runs Pathfinder modules (probably their best known product) are lacking in "higher aspirations".

Wow. Just wow.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Wow. How arrogant is that? People who want dungeons are the "lowest common denominator"? That anyone who runs Pathfinder modules (probably their best known product) are lacking in "higher aspirations".

Wow. Just wow.

Yeah I was thinking the same exact thing.

I'm also fairly certain the D&D WAS defined by the adventures. Get a group of role-playing strangers together and I'm sure that they'd listen with semi-polite disinterest to the awesome homebrew campaign that I played in for years. Mention Tomb of Horrors or Keep on the Borderlands or The Village of Hommlett and watch the tales of high adventures and peoples various / shared experiences come out.
With 3-3.5 and Pathfinder it's adventures like Sunless Citiadel, Forge of Fury, Red Hand of Doom, Rappan Athuk, Tomb of Abysthor and Burnt Offerings, Hook Mountain Massacre and Stolen Land.

But hey, Lowest Common Denominator and all that.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A skill system that is an integral part of the core rules is a bit at odds with a class based system which features strong archetypes. If classes are the most important factor in defining the abilities of a character, then skills will naturally have a much less important role in the game. If they are equally important then why bother with classes? Core skill systems clash with class based systems at the abstraction level.

Abilities that should be unique to a class don't belong in a skill system and if skills are used at all then they should be available to all classes equally. Another thing that makes skill use rather annoying for D&D in particular is that, regardless of class, all D&D characters are assumed to be professional adventurers. This means that, apart from thier special class abilities all characters should have a basic level of competence at "adventuring" skills. Swimming, basic climbing, rope use, camping, packing, hiking,etc.

Not every skill based rpg assumes that every character is a professional adventurer, which is why a classless, skill system works so well for them. D&D DOES assume this along with a focus on strong archetypes. Let classes do thier job and make skills (if they must be included) an optional module for individuality and background flavor similar to the secondary skills in AD&D.

 

[Leatherhead]

A variety of things might be considered playstyles or elements thereof, but adventure products are not a playstyle.

But dungeons are more than just a nod to nostalgia. They are used for metagame impact, even if the people who are using them don't quite fully grasp them.

The cramped quarters are used to heavily bias combat to the melee side of things. They also make small formations (such as the ones using 4-6 people) more important.
Hidden doors and traps are used to make certain skills and abilities more prominent.
Even items have different levels of usefulness.

The environment of the game is a huge factor on playstyle. A game set in a noble court plays out differently than one set on a battlefield, which is equally different than that of a dungeon.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But dungeons are more than just a nod to nostalgia. They are used for metagame impact, even if the people who are using them don't quite fully grasp them.
...
The environment of the game is a huge factor on playstyle. A game set in a noble court plays out differently than one set on a battlefield, which is equally different than that of a dungeon.

Indeed they do. There is a distinction on that metagame level between playing in a game in which there are dungeons, and playing in a game (dungeoncrawl) in which the players are either forced or assumed to spend most of their meaningful time in that setting. It's simply a form of railroading.

And, simply taken as a setting, a dungeon is trite and anachronistic; something that a skillful DM could do well, but not a likely venue for an enjoyable game. I expect to see rules in the DMG for setting up dungeon-like structures, but not a game that forces players to use them.

I'm also fairly certain the D&D WAS defined by the adventures.

I've never seen it that way. My group tried and quickly discarded the idea, with prejudice, and no one I taught to play is even familiar with the concept. But even the people I know who had previous experiences with published adventures generally cannot remember the name of the adventure or the point of it; it certainly hasn't had any unifying effect in my gaming community and seems to almost invariably result in poor experiences for the players. At best, they look at it as the equivalent of a DM playing t-ball or learning to ride a bike using training wheels. I don't look at it nearly so favorably.

Setting "at best" aside though, the concept of playing a published adventure is contrary, in my opinion, to the very nature of the game. If a DM solicits people to play in his game and then runs a game that someone else created, it violates the social contract. It's like someone inviting you over to watch a movie, sticking a DVD in, and then going out with some other friends and leaving you alone. In the literal sense, you are watching a movie (or playing D&D), but the person's lack of caring and investment is hurtful and socially unacceptable.

 

[DEFCON 1]

In the literal sense, you are watching a movie (or playing D&D), but the person's lack of caring and investment is hurtful and socially unacceptable.

Thankfully, I think we can all say that you are an extreme outlier to the game with your opinions on this. I would suggest that the 99% of the DMs out there who use some material written or created by someone else (be it an adventure, a campaign setting, or whatever) are not in fact uninvested or lacking care for his or her game.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Setting "at best" aside though, the concept of playing a published adventure is contrary, in my opinion, to the very nature of the game. If a DM solicits people to play in his game and then runs a game that someone else created, it violates the social contract. It's like someone inviting you over to watch a movie, sticking a DVD in, and then going out with some other friends and leaving you alone. In the literal sense, you are watching a movie (or playing D&D), but the person's lack of caring and investment is hurtful and socially unacceptable.

So basically I've been a bad GM for the past almost 30 something years? And I dont put any caring and investment into my games because I tend to run published adventures? Do you at least understand how disgustingly arrogant and condescending that sounds though? I've run homebrew games and published adventures and in MY experience it doenst matter what gets run as long as your players enjoy themselves.

Players on average dont give a crap about the pages and pages of backstory that gets generated in a homebrew or the powerful NPC's that populate the world. If that stuff isnt incorporated into the game/story as it's being told then it's useless (at least to the Players and their PC's). Even running a published adventure there is STILL actual work to be done in making the adventure our own. There is LITERALLY no difference in dropping the PC's into a world of my own making and dropping them into the FR or GreyHawk or Golarion other than placating my own ego. And that's something that as an adult I'm well past.

I can incorporate specific themes, action set pieces, relationships and roleplaying into any published adventure that I run often without messing up the adventure as written. There's a skill to doing that which, I'm guessing more than few people lack. But it's not a case of caring less or investing less time. It's about knowing (or getting to know) your group and keeping them engaged. The game and the adventures are tools no more no less. and the idea that doing it ONE way and in this case YOUR way is the only real way to do things and any other way is sub par is, IN MY HONEST OPINION, contrary to the very nature of the game.

Interpreting/Using something that someone else created is violates the social contract? Really? WHO'S GAME SYSTEM ARE YOU USING RIGHT NOW? WHY ARENT YOU USING ONE THAT YOU CREATED? When you and your friends sit down to watch a movie? Why havent you shot, cut and editied your own to watch instead of watching / consuming something someone else has made?

My examples are outrageous you say? No more outrageous and a lot less insulting than your t-ball/training wheels/putting in a movie and walking out examples.

Bloody Ridiculous.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And, simply taken as a setting, a dungeon is trite and anachronistic; something that a skillful DM could do well, but not a likely venue for an enjoyable game.

I can picture Malcom from Jurassic Park at your game: " Excuse me. Will there be any actual dungeons in this dungeons & dragons game?"

Seriously, why D&D then? The D&D game isn't ideally suited for, and was never intended to be the game for ALL fantasy roleplaying. You can do a lot of things with it but choosing D&D for "avoid dungeons at all costs" gaming is like shooting hoops with a volleyball. You can certainly do it but there are other options better suited for the job.

D&D is a group of strong archetype fantasy adventurers exploring dangerous places in search of wealth & power. You can branch off of that but the game functions best when used largely for that intended purpose.

The notion that D&D has to be ALL of fantasy roleplaying has screwed up the game more than anything else over the years.

I've never seen it that way. My group tried and quickly discarded the idea, with prejudice, and no one I taught to play is even familiar with the concept. But even the people I know who had previous experiences with published adventures generally cannot remember the name of the adventure or the point of it; it certainly hasn't had any unifying effect in my gaming community and seems to almost invariably result in poor experiences for the players. At best, they look at it as the equivalent of a DM playing t-ball or learning to ride a bike using training wheels. I don't look at it nearly so favorably.

Setting "at best" aside though, the concept of playing a published adventure is contrary, in my opinion, to the very nature of the game. If a DM solicits people to play in his game and then runs a game that someone else created, it violates the social contract. It's like someone inviting you over to watch a movie, sticking a DVD in, and then going out with some other friends and leaving you alone. In the literal sense, you are watching a movie (or playing D&D), but the person's lack of caring and investment is hurtful and socially unacceptable.

As long as I'm having fun in someone's game, I don't find the adventures participated in hurtful or socially unacceptable regardless of source.