D&D 5E (2014) My happiness or yours.

[Obryn]

I don't even know what you're asking? Are you asking permission to gloat or something?

 

[Halivar]

Why do you have to like every single aspect of a game to tolerate it as a whole? If we applied that philosophy to people we'd all be dead in world-side nuclear conflagration. Just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Mistwell]

I had to endure 4th edition and now I feel it's my turn to be happy if a compromise can't be met. I was told I'm being selfish for feeling this way, but I feel I am just being realistic

I don't think you are being realistic.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Anyways, reading the post itself....



So pretty much exactly what they're doing already? Damage on a Miss is a completely optional choice among 4 other options, 2 of which are weapon-neutral. Nothing forces you to take Damage on a Miss at all...well, unless you play a blaster Wizard I guess.

The problem is, damage on a miss was better as a feat that someone can take. Wizards then decided they would make it a part of a class which starts to put it deeper into the mechanics. They already have certain monsters that have it outside of AoEs. I fear these type of mechanics will begin to show up more frequently until you are basically rewriting the game in order to make it fit into your preferred game style. The deeper the mechanic is implanted, the harder it becomes to get rid of. Kind of like what happens when termites become too embedded in your home.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I don't think you are being realistic.

LOL!

Sad when thats all you can come up with.

 

[ExploderWizard]

First off, if your overall happiness is dependent on what is or isn't included in some game then you should see a therapist and perhaps get some better perspective.

My happiness isn't connected with whatever WOTC decides to put in their games. How miserable would life be if everyone relied on what someone else did to be happy?

Game mechanics are not near the top of the list for me when it comes to playing or not playing a game. The company of fellow players and game subject matter (genre/campaign focus) come miles ahead of any mechanical concerns.

When it comes to all the stuff that makes up 5E the only unanswered question I really have is, will it be interesting enough for me to want to run it? If the answer is no then it will join the ranks of 3E and 4E as games to be possibly played if someone else runs them.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

The problem is, damage on a miss was better as a feat that someone can take. Wizards then decided they would make it a part of a class which starts to put it deeper into the mechanics. They already have certain monsters that have it outside of AoEs. I fear these type of mechanics will begin to show up more frequently until you are basically rewriting the game in order to make it fit into your preferred game style. The deeper the mechanic is implanted, the harder it becomes to get rid of. Kind of like what happens when termites become too embedded in your home.

Again, it's still not something you're forced to pick.

If you're DMing, then ban the options and don't make/use monsters that have it.
If you're a player, you simply opt to not take the option.
If you're a player and another player wants to use it, either hope the DM bans it or accept that someone else is going to be using it.

 

[the Jester]

This topic came up in the deceased "damage on a miss thread" and I thought a thread about this topic would be a great discussion. Now just to be clear, a compromise can't always be reached, nor will one be reached even if it could at times. If there is a way for everyone to get what they want then happy days, but if my happiness has to come at the cost of yours then I can say with all honesty that I can accept that.

The problem is that everyone else can, with all honesty, accept it if their happiness comes at the cost of yours, too. So this isn't really all that constructive of a position to take.

There are certain mechanics that make or break the game for them and sometimes we are faced with the decision that we either play the game or we don't. If WoTc could apply these types of conflicting mechanics, such as damage on a miss, in a way to make them optional then everyone can be happy because you can either use it or leave it out. WoTc unfortunately, aren't known for their compromise and will leave you having to make the difficult choice of either playing the game or walking away.

What about playing the game but house-ruling dealbreaker mechanics out? What about using the many, many options we haven't yet seen, but have been assured are going to be part of the game? This needn't be nearly so binary. Heck, back in 1e and 2e, most groups had a binder full of house rules (or maybe several!). Tons of groups altered 3e in any number of ways, from E6 to feat-per-level to generic warrior-expert-caster classes. Why can't you do this to 5e, too?

Moreover, one of the criticisms most widely leveled at WotC in their development of 5e seems to be that they are compromising too much. So I find your assertion a bit dubious.

I feel like if there came a choice, I want to be happy. I had to endure 4th edition and now I feel it's my turn to be happy if a compromise can't be met. I was told I'm being selfish for feeling this way, but I feel I am just being realistic

Sorry, but there's absolutely nothing "realistic" in feeling like it's "your turn to be happy". That's simply not how the world works. We don't take turns getting our way. Either the game appeals to you, or it doesn't. You aren't entitled to it any more than I am.

The guys who make the game- WotC- are doing it to make money. Money to pay their employees (the guys actually writing the books). Money to pay their shareholders. Money to pay their printing costs and layout costs and art costs and overhead. They aren't out to make anyone unhappy, but you can bet your last dollar that they are going to choose a larger group of people over a smaller group. Ain't no taking turns here, just business. Now, I'd love to love 5e, and I have high hopes, but am I entitled to a game of D&D tailored to my tastes? Nope- and I haven't really had one since 1e. Nevertheless, I've managed to make the system sing for myself and my players in every subsequent edition- largely because I recognize that my game is my game, and I can bend, deform, tweak, rewrite or otherwise change any bits of it not to my taste. That's my job as dm.

As for "having to endure 4th edition" (do you really have to take shots at it in every single thread you post??), who held a gun to your head? The idea that you "had to" anything with 4e is ludicrous. Don't like it? Stick to 3.5. Or play Pathfinder. Or go back to 1e. Or play a retroclone. Or od&d. Or 2e. Or heck, even switch systems to Savage Worlds or World of Darkness or TORG. There were plenty of other options, and good ones at that. If 4e kept kicking your dog, why didn't you leave it behind?

 

[Halivar]

As for "having to endure 4th edition" (do you really have to take shots at it in every single thread you post??), who held a gun to your head? The idea that you "had to" anything with 4e is ludicrous. Don't like it? Stick to 3.5. Or play Pathfinder. Or go back to 1e. Or play a retroclone. Or od&d. Or 2e. Or heck, even switch systems to Savage Worlds or World of Darkness or TORG. There were plenty of other options, and good ones at that. If 4e kept kicking your dog, why didn't you leave it behind?

This usually seems to mean, "I endured seeing other people enjoying it." We don't like it when not everyone hates the same things we do.

 

[Ichneumon]

Mine. Clearly mine.