D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Oofta]

Well, compare it to magic items in D&D, rare and unique means pretty kick ass IMO!


Oh, it could be anything really. It is more about establishing your "ruling" for future use and it standardizes it for new players, so they know what to expect in those situations.

For example:

I just use standard rules for jumping, no check if it's your strength or less. I guess I have had someone try to jump further. I just took the specific situation into account and did the standard difficulty setting call. I let the player know approximate difficulty* and we go from there. So what are they jumping? Roof to roof? Slanted tile roof or flat top? It's probably going to be roughly the same DC, but the result of failure is likely to vary from "you slide off" for the former to "you manage to grab on to the ledge but you can barely hold on.

In my last game PCs are in a basement storage area with a variety of crates and barrels. One of the PCs decided to jump on top of a crate to get better positioning. I decided that the crates had been down there a long time, they may not be completely safe to stand on. So I let the player it was an easy acrobatics check getting on and off but there was a possibility they could fall off.

It's rulings over rules, taking into consideration a nearly infinite number of variables based on the scene and then setting a DC I think is appropriate. Which is the way the game is designed to run, no house rules. Since the DC can vary from scene to scene there's no need to codify it.

So unlike the last couple of editions the authors didn't try to lock down everything, it's one of the main differences that I see between 5E and the previous 2.5 editions and hearkens back to the 20th century versions of the game.

*Based on what they can see. Most of the time there's no difference between perceived difficulty/result of failure.

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, kind of. I really don't think he's worked up enough about it to be genuinely trying to annoy. I think he throws in little cracks like that as jokes which experienced players will take as such, and expects us 4E fans to roll our eyes, laugh along, or throw an angry comment in which will feed the YouTube algorithm but not hurt his feelings.

I really don't think he means it hurtfully.

I'm reminded of that bit from Michael Scott in the Office:

“You don’t call retarded people retards. It’s bad taste. You call your friends retards when they are acting retarded.”

It's all meant to be a "joke" to Michael Scott; however, the joke is on Michael Scott who fails to see how his comment still is offensive, doubly so in the context of the show, as this "retarded" comment came on the heels of calling one his employees "gay," which leads to his employee being outed to his coworkers. But hooray for the algorithim.

I think some of his actual advice on prepping for and running games is really great. His two page spread dungeon designs with control panel layout and efficient, bullet-pointed notes, his concepts for running combat and making it dramatic and exciting, and his various suggested house rules for D&D are generally really good stuff. YMMV.

I think that some of his advice comes across on the level of stuff your dad says like "suck it up and be a man" or complaining about "participation trophies" and entitled kids these days.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think when it comes to scene framing, there are two ways to look at it. D&D has always had very specific scene framing in the form of their published adventure modules. For those, you get very specific advice and often very specific opening scenes. Often with boxed text.

Outside of published modules, the clarity of what exactly a GM is supposed to do to get a game going varies quite a bit from edition to edition. Some have very clear practices and processes to use, and very specific guidance on how to do so. Others are very vague.

I’m not a huge fan of Professor Dungeon Master overall (and it’s only partly because of the name) but I think his point doesn’t really hold up. All the games are the same if we view all their components merely as options to craft our own version. But that’s not really what they are. And it feels counterproductive (to me) to dismiss the differences and how they shape play.

 

[Sacrosanct]

To be honest, why should I care what non-gamers think about D&D? Of course they wouldn't know or care about the differences. I don't see the relevance.

Because it helps put things into perspective? The message in that video is that we're ALL playing D&D regardless of edition, PF, OSR, etc., and we should all enjoy our preferences rather than get caught up in gatekeeping. That to everyone else, we're all playing the same basic game, and perhaps we should remember that before we start complaining how someone who likes edition X isn't "playing real D&D".

I have to say I'm surprised to see so many people get upset about that. Of course edition matters to personal preference (and he's not arguing otherwise), but there seems to be several people who are either outright misrepresenting what he's saying, or seem to be getting defensive about his point I just mentioned.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because it helps put things into perspective? The message in that video is that we're ALL playing D&D regardless of edition, PF, OSR, etc., and we should all enjoy our preferences rather than get caught up in gatekeeping. That to everyone else, we're all playing the same basic game, and perhaps we should remember that before we start complaining how someone who likes edition X isn't "playing real D&D".

I have to say I'm surprised to see so many people get upset about that. Of course edition matters to personal preference (and he's not arguing otherwise), but there seems to be several people who are either outright misrepresenting what he's saying, or seem to be getting defensive about his point I just mentioned.

Its a nice point; everyone should try to get along. But the video in question displays their own preferences in a way that undercuts their message of peace. That is what I think people have a problem with.

And the outside view does seem irrelevant. No one outside any community care about the details of that community, practically by definition. If they did care, they'd most likely join up.

 

[Fifth Element]

For example:

I'm confused. You say you didn't have ANY house rules for B/X, but for the example provided of one of the many house rules you absolutely need for 5E to be playable, it's something that isn't covered by B/X rules at all. So why wouldn't you need the same or similar house rule for B/X, in order to make it playable, and to be consistent in your rulings?

 

[Sacrosanct]

It would have helped if people hadn't spent...ooh, half or more of the last decade-plus specifically crapping on one particular edition and making it their mission in life to define exactly how there couldn't possibly be any such similarities.

Half or more of the past decade? Oh, you mean the 4e fans saying how 5e is garbage because it didn't include any of the 4e rules they were promised?

I know that's not what you were referencing, but the point is I hope you realize the hyperbole in your comment isn't necessarily accurate, and can easily be applied to the "side" you don't think it does. Glass houses and all of that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"The point of the video is we should all get along."

"You disagreed with me? Boot to the head."

 

[Sacrosanct]

"The point of the video is we should all get along."

"You disagreed with me? Boot to the head."

Who is doing that, and where?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

IME you would lose that wager, but obviously YMMV.


Well, that is the way it is. If you see that, you would understand you likely have dozens and dozens of house-rules, if not hundreds.

Unless, of course, you never make "rulings".

Anyway, at this point I think it is best to agree to disagree and move on?

LOL “I’m objectively right but let’s agree to disagree”!?



Sure man.