D&D General The Problem with Talking About D&D

[jayoungr]

People don't always live in a bubble. They have to deal with the expectations others bring to games they participate in, and how the designer sells or doesn't sell doing certain things is not a non-factor there.

While I agree with you that has some effect, I feel like perception has really swung hard in the direction of "They've gotta spell it out or it doesn't count!" in the time since 5E was released. Or at least, there's a vocal contingent asking for it.

 

[overgeeked]

Oh, I guess we need a reminder again.

Was the game balanced around that 6-8 medium encounters?

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.sageadvice.eu

According to Mearls, PC resources were designed around the assumption of 6-8 encounters per day. According to Crawford, there’s no minimum number of encounters per day…note how that doesn’t contradict Mearls’ statement.

 

[payn]

Oh, I guess we need a reminder again.

Was the game balanced around that 6-8 medium encounters?

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.sageadvice.eu

Isnt there a contradicting posting in the same advice line by the same designer tho?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

People don't always live in a bubble. They have to deal with the expectations others bring to games they participate in, and how the designer sells or doesn't sell doing certain things is not a non-factor there.

Ok, I will admit to living in a bubble but realistically how often does one have to renegotiate the terms of a campaign?

 

[Vaalingrade]

While I agree with you that has some effect, I feel like perception has really swung hard in the direction of "They've gotta spell it out or it doesn't count!" in the time since 5E was released. Or at least, there's a vocal contingent asking for it.

5e enjoyed a period where it was immune to criticism because no one wanted an edition war.

 

[overgeeked]

OK, fair enough. it is one the the things I really don't get is the number of people that need explicit permission to do stuff in the game. On the flip side I don't get the number of people that get upset when WoTC gives them permission to do stuff. Its not like someone else's game will affect yours.

A lot of people come from games or a mindset that says “anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden.” Others come from games or a mindset that says “anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.” They lead to wildly different ways of interacting with systems.

These permissions and what other people do does have an effect on my table. It conditions the players to have expectation of limits and freedoms that I as the DM might not share. Like PCs race options. The default seems to be anything goes. But I prefer human-centric games. So that’s one example of a big hurdle I have to overcome because of the background assumptions, permissions, etc in the wider hobby. There’s more and other DMs face other hurdles. So too with players. Etc.

 

[Thomas Shey]

While I agree with you that has some effect, I feel like perception has really swung hard in the direction of "They've gotta spell it out or it doesn't count!" in the time since 5E was released. Or at least, there's a vocal contingent asking for it.

There's always going to be some of that for sure. I just think the "Its not your game so why does it matter?" kinds of response tend to make some big assumptions of their own.

 

[James Gasik]

But as we've seen, as time goes on, people want to push 5e in different directions. Sometimes radically different. As for Mearls and Crawford's differing opinions, it comes down to this- if the party faces less encounters, yes, things are easier for them. But, and say it with me now, they gain less experience points. Now some people may have stopped with xp altogether, as is their right, but if you're tracking these things, the easier the game is, the slower it advances (and presumably, takes longer to reach the high levels that cause problems and become harder to run for).

On the other hand, if every game session is hard mode, you should get more xp, shrinking the the campaign, and more rapidly getting to the levels where power is problematic. As in all things, that means there should be a mix. Most sessions should not push the party to the limit, but a few can.

So all they're saying is, if you want a mathematically precise game, 1 long rest and 2 short rests per diem, with 6-8 balanced encounters will make your party run out of resources.

Change these numbers, and how long this takes changes, no real surprise.

So, TLDR; there is no wrong way to play, find a balance that works for you and your group.

 

[Vaalingrade]

A lot of people come from games or a mindset that says “anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden.”

I have gotten multiple notes form my playtesters that led to me adding a section to the feats that says 'Feats provide a means for a character to perform certain actions in a reliable or repeatable way. Their presence does not mean characters without the feat are unable to take that action ever. Please use the ad hoc rules to adjudicate reasonable uses of the actions feats simulate.'

Then they asked for a definition of 'reasonable uses'.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

A lot of people come from games or a mindset that says “anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden.” Others come from games or a mindset that says “anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted.” They lead to wildly different ways of interacting with systems.

These permissions and what other people do does have an effect on my table. It conditions the players to have expectation of limits and freedoms that I as the DM might not share. Like PCs race options. The default seems to be anything goes. But I prefer human-centric games. So that’s one example of a big hurdle I have to overcome because of the background assumptions, permissions, etc in the wider hobby. There’s more and other DMs face other hurdles. So too with players. Etc.

But is that not a session zero issue. You get all of that out of the way in the beginning. it is not like you have a different stable of gamers each session.