D&D 2E Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?

[dropbear8mybaby]

And a long section telling you to fill out your character sheet.

And yet, I have to remind and insist that players do it. Last game I glossed over all that kind of thing and didn't bother with tracking anything or worrying about light sources, etc. This one I'm clamping down, mainly for a more gritty feel. Point is, it's still a list of requirements that seems to scare some players.

It's about as scary as an overeager TA back in college.

Sexual harassment! Leave my T&A out of this!

 

[ccs]

From a purely personal perspective, I probably wouldn't play in this proposed game either. I've had far too many negative experiences with DM's that I didn't know very well to simply trust that this or that DM will be fun.

And, yeah, if I called up, after reading an ad like PM Ming's, and the first thing I hear is a shopping list of restrictions, there'd be big alarm bells going off in my head. Not because Pm Ming is a bad DM or anything like that, but, because I've had so many negative experiences with DM's that basically began off exactly the same way - the DM telling me that this shopping list of things in the game is off the table.

I know correlation and causation and all that, but, it's been my experience that I won't enjoy a DM's game that starts off with that many restrictions. So, I cannot really blame the players for bowing out of the game. I know that I would.

So at what point in the conversation do you want to learn really important info? And in what form?

For example; If you were considering joining my game you need to know the following:
1) No Drow or Duergar. This is not negotiable.
2) Any other non-PHB race? Ask me 1st, realizing I'm likely going to say no as I'm not a fan of "monster" races. But sometimes....
3) Psionics do not exist in any game I run, whatever the edition. This is not negotiable.
4) UA stuff? Ask me 1st & I'll decide on a case by case basis - unless it involves playing Drow/Duergar/Psionics, in wich case refer back to 1 & 3.
5) No 3rd party stuff. This is not negotiable.
6) I do not read, nor care what's written in, Sage advice or errata docs.
7) This is not the AL. This is not negotiable.
8) You are not allowed to complain about another players stats. Be they high, low, or otherwise. This is important because each player gets to choose wich method they use in my games: 4d6 drop/standard array/or standard PB.
9) If you choose to roll your stats, there's no re-rolls & you will play those results in good faith.
10) There may be additional changes based upon the exact campaign &/or players involved.

 

[tglassy]

I don't understand the aversion to Sage Advice or Errata. Aren't they just clarifications of the original intent of the rules? Or do you just like things to be ambiguous so you can have more control?


Sent from my iPad using EN World

 

[Monayuris]

I don't understand the aversion to Sage Advice or Errata. Aren't they just clarifications of the original intent of the rules? Or do you just like things to be ambiguous so you can have more control?


Sent from my iPad using EN World

I personally don't have an aversion to Sage Advice, but I also don't grant any authority to it. I'll read it and take the advice it offers under consideration, but I reserve the right to disagree or rule otherwise.

In my opinion, at the very point an RPG rule book is purchased, it ceases to be the designers' game and it becomes the players' game.

 

[Monayuris]

For the original poster, I don't think 5E is nearly at the point of Pathfinder or 3.5 level bloat.

However, I will say in my opinion, as a former 4th edition DM, the 'all elements are core' guidance implied in 4E did ruin the game. Combined with access to all rules elements from every source via the character builder, this assumption gave players a vast number of options in terms of feats, powers and their synergies that existed in combinations that were impossible to test against.

So, I tend to go with a core only, no feats, no multi-class game because I am a little gun-shy on letting proliferation of options lead to unbalanced characters. It is probably a little irrational, and I do think I may open things up to feats and multi-classing...

On the other hand, the intensity of discussion concerning certain feats in the PHB does discourage me from doing so.

 

[Greg K]

I've had the opposite experience. The "everything including the kitchen sink" DM's are usually the worst. Those who've got restrictions, as long as those restrictions seem well thought out, have generally been the ones who I've found to understand the game and its requirements the best.

I don't know that the DM's are the worst, but I find "everything including the kitchen sink" to not be fun and avoid them. However, I too find restrictions on classes and races to be more fun (provided that the DM takes the time to pre-construct a campaign setting built around those limits). An all fighter campaign, an all rogue campaign, a no magic or limited magic (ki and psionics being included as types of magic), an all human campaign (or an an all human campaign with any of those previously listed) all sound fun to me. A campaign with races limited to the basic set and classes/archetypes found in the SRD also sounds like the start of a good campaign depending upon other details of the campaign.

 

[Tony Vargas]

the 'all elements are core' guidance .... Combined with access to all rules elements from every source via the character builder, this assumption gave players a vast number of options ...

Yeah, it was a cynical marketing ploy, but options are nice to have...
...as a player.

 

[Monayuris]

Yeah, it was a cynical marketing ploy, but options are nice to have...
...as a player.

Yeah... I actually like seeing some of the new sub-classes. Sub-classes are a low impact means of adding options, since they are a 'bolt-on' to the class framework and are designed as a single rules element. They add breadth instead of depth.

I also appreciate that 5E took the direction of having characters have less feats that are each more powerful. It avoided the feat chains and the smaller mix and match 'micro' feats. One feat in 5E is closer to a complete chain of feats in other editions.

The greater number of 'slots' available in the game for plug-in rules, the greater the chance for unintended, abusable synergies to occur.

I guess it is not a super big deal, since a lot of times i'm sure players will want the ASI, so I imagine in general most characters will have one feat and maybe not get their second until higher levels, if at all (I think ASI's are useful for not just your primary ability).

I'm starting up a new game, soon and I may just go for it and allow feats. The worst that can happen is we just tweak any that cause problems.

 

[Hussar]

So at what point in the conversation do you want to learn really important info? And in what form?

For example; If you were considering joining my game you need to know the following:
1) No Drow or Duergar. This is not negotiable.
2) Any other non-PHB race? Ask me 1st, realizing I'm likely going to say no as I'm not a fan of "monster" races. But sometimes....
3) Psionics do not exist in any game I run, whatever the edition. This is not negotiable.
4) UA stuff? Ask me 1st & I'll decide on a case by case basis - unless it involves playing Drow/Duergar/Psionics, in wich case refer back to 1 & 3.
5) No 3rd party stuff. This is not negotiable.
6) I do not read, nor care what's written in, Sage advice or errata docs.
7) This is not the AL. This is not negotiable.
8) You are not allowed to complain about another players stats. Be they high, low, or otherwise. This is important because each player gets to choose wich method they use in my games: 4d6 drop/standard array/or standard PB.
9) If you choose to roll your stats, there's no re-rolls & you will play those results in good faith.
10) There may be additional changes based upon the exact campaign &/or players involved.

Most of that is pretty bog standard stuff. No real issues. But, why would you not list that up front? You're going to have to tell a new player all of this in the first ten minutes of chargen anyway, so, why not include that list on your "Player Wanted" ad?

To be honest, the "No 3rd Party" stuff would probably be a turn off for me. Mostly because I like a lot of the 3pp stuff, so, yeah, why wouldn't you let me know that right up front? I suppose if you're putting up a poster at the local FLGS, space might be an issue, but, realistically, why wouldn't you tell all that up front?

What's the point of hiding any of this?

 

[Hussar]

I've had the opposite experience. The "everything including the kitchen sink" DM's are usually the worst. Those who've got restrictions, as long as those restrictions seem well thought out, have generally been the ones who I've found to understand the game and its requirements the best.

These are the guidelines I'm using for an upcoming ToA campaign:




Scared homie?

Oh, hey, fair enough. We all have different experiences. Scared? Not really. Interested? Not in the slightest. You insist on using D&D Beyond. I don't have that program and have no interest in using it. So, your ad, presuming you would put that restriction up front and center, would mean that I wouldn't waste your time or mine asking about your game.

At that point, it has nothing whatsoever to do with play style preferences or anything like that, it's simply you have a requirement that I am not interested in reaching. Fair enough, we don't play together. Easy, peesy. We're both happy.

But, look at what @PM Ming claims about his ad - all he included was a play time and edition. Imagine how much time and bother he would have saved had he been a bit more forthcoming about what he wants in the game.

Look, I used to build groups using VTT's. It took me AGES to figure this out because I'm not the quickest bunny in the forest. At first I was like PM Ming and just say, "Hey, come and play D&D (3e at the time) at this time" and the groups were, frankly absolute . They were terrible. And, as time went on, my ad's for "Player Wanted" became more and more specific and less and less polite. To the point of it basically reading, "Look, here is EXACTLY the kind of game I'm running. Here are EXACTLY the requirements. If you do not match these, don't even bother."

And it worked perfectly. My current group has been together for almost ten years now. Longest group I've ever gamed with. Been fantastic. So, yeah, when advertising a new game, you have to be VERY specific. After all, you're going to spend dozens, if not hundreds of hours with a stranger. You NEED to find out if you're compatible at the table before you start.