A "Why Oh Why" RPG Thread [+]

[amethal]

Why oh why do I find Pathfinder AP campaign backgrounds to be long and complicated?

They need to cover what is going to happen in a 6 part adventure that will fill many sessions. (Although I doubt the 3 part APs have introductions that are any shorter!)

So the background feels the need to explain why the PCs will eventually end up in location X, meet monster Y etc. (And there might be some reverse engineering going on as well, in that if one of the authors comes up with a cool scene then it might get foreshadowed in a revision to the introduction.) It helps the GM to tie all the various parts together.

 

[James Gasik]

i'd say the most obvious answer to me is that they simply don't need to coordinate their characters like they needed to in earlier editions, characters are well rounded enough to not immediately fail outside of their class' specific niche and the adventures are flexible enough to not require a specific class as the solution to a given problem, a party of four wizards is a viable party in 5e whereas in earlier editions they probably would have been reduced to salsa by the first pack of goblins they encountered, you don't need the designated cleric pumping out heals and the fighter up front tanking the hits for the rogue and the wizard, so the players can all just design the character they want in session 0 and figure that it'll all work out whatever they bring to the table.

There is no doubt truth here, but I've been having this problem ever since my first 3e campaign, where I intentionally had everyone meet me at the local Denny's so the could strategize their character creation.

I had no idea what a "Session Zero" was back when I played AD&D, lol. Though by late 2e, it wasn't like playing a Specialty Priest was any kind of punishment, given how ludicrously powerful they were at that point, with huge lists of bonus spells and granted powers, and the ability to poach whatever ability they liked from other classes.

 

[Staffan]

My own take is, just rip alignment out of the game entirely, except maybe for extraplanar beings. There, done.

I do have to say, though... Have people seen a lot of, "Let's go kill some orcs!"? Because in my experience, fighting orcs is almost always something a lot closer to self-defense.

Is killing an orc band that's trying to kill you worse than killing a group of human bandits that's trying to kill you? Darned if I can see how. Though depending on the situation, maybe the orcs would be easier to negotiate with.

In the typical old-school D&D setting, humans and their allies live in enclaves of "civilization" nestled in large regions of wilderness (4e called this "Points of Light", but the idea goes back to early D&D). A significant portion of play, particularly at mid-to-high levels ("name" level in AD&D and BECMI) consists of some local authority deputizing PCs (particularly fighters) to expand their territory by building a stronghold and pacifying the nearby wilderness by killing off all the monsters.

In that situation, are the orcs really the bad guys?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why oh why is the next edition of D&D codenamed OneD&D?

Has WoTC revealed any clue as to what the "One" part means? Is it going be modular, like WoTC used to talk about in the days of D&D Next? Or is it going to be "One" united multi-media ecosystem? Or we just don't know?

I mean, Jer hits on the core reason - a pre-emptive attempt to stop fans standardizing the name to 5.5E or 6E, because apparently not really referring to the edition caused 5E to happen (rather than "D&D" which was no doubt the goal).

But the specific decision to use OneD&D seems to me was caused by hardcore corporate echo-chamber tone-deaf naming. It's not an easy name to type, it's not particularly catchy, and there's a long trend in human history of things which start with "One X" being bad things. I'm not joking or trying be a jerk when I say literally about a second after I read it was called OneD&D my brain went "Ein reich, ein volk..." (not saying that was fair or appropriate of my brain!).

It's definitely also intended that we see all parts of the 1D&D "ecosystem" as a collective whole, too. Specifically the 3D VTT has been referred to by WotC as "OneD&D", for example, and has no other name I'm aware of. So I think the idea was basically everything they're introducing was going to be under one umbrella.

Personally I would colour-comment that this whole this is absolutely bonehead in the same exact way trying to delete the OGL was. Fans aren't going to go along with it. It's a clunky name, and in practice, fans will need/want to distinguish between the different elements of the ecosystem, so you just keep trying to call them "OneD&D", people will just figure out their own names for the parts, and it'll probably get called 6E in the long term regardless of anything else because that's not only 1/3rd the keypresses and more memorable, it also sounds less weirdly corporate and creepy, and it has that nerd cache where you have to be a little tiny bit "in the know" to know what is being referred to (just the slightest smidge but still). Black Flag is smarter because it can be shortened to BF and likely will be.

I think the whole thing is a great demonstration of how profoundly significant parts of WotC don't really understand D&D's audience, despite having a wealth of data, experienced designers, and so on.

 

[The Shadow]

Re: OneD&D, it's marketing, pure and simple. They tried the same thing during the 5e playtest, if you recall: "D&D Next". Which thankfully didn't stick.

No matter what they say, OneD&D is 5.5e. And no doubt there will be a 6e down the road.

 

[CleverNickName]

Why oh why are druids adverse to wearing metal armor, but have no problem at all with metal weapons?

I mean, I'm gonna handwave it anyway (chitin and bone and shell etc. instead of iron and steel, same cost and stats) but it would be nice if they were at least consistent with the druid's equipment. Sheesh.

 

[The Shadow]

Why oh why are druids adverse to wearing metal armor, but have no problem at all with metal weapons?

I mean, I'm gonna handwave it anyway (chitin and bone and shell etc. instead of iron and steel) but it would be nice if they were at least consistent with the druid's equipment. Sheesh.

Why do they have a problem with metal armor in the first place? Is metal somehow not part of the natural order?

Maybe they have a problem with iron, specifically, for somewhat the same reason that the fey traditionally do.

 

[James Gasik]

Why oh why are druids adverse to wearing metal armor, but have no problem at all with metal weapons?

I mean, I'm gonna handwave it anyway (chitin and bone and shell etc. instead of iron and steel, same cost and stats) but it would be nice if they were at least consistent with the druid's equipment. Sheesh.

So the way this was explained to me is, Druids gain their powers from a pact made with primal spirits of nature. While allowing Druids to use some weapons is "fair", as most Humanoids lack claws or a bite, having access to better "hide" than animals have naturally is not kosher. You want nature powers, you have to abide by nature rules.

 

[The Shadow]

So the way this was explained to me is, Druids gain their powers from a pact made with primal spirits of nature. While allowing Druids to use some weapons is "fair", as most Humanoids lack claws or a bite, having access to better "hide" than animals have naturally is not kosher. You want nature powers, you have to abide by nature rules.

Interesting. I can kinda see it. Fair is fair!

Why don't rangers have the same limitation, though?

 

[MNblockhead]

Why oh why does ChatGPT want my phone number in order to create a login?