The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Yeah, that's the general idea. Instead of just suddenly gaining a full proficiency at levels A,B,C, and D, you gradually gain them. Additionally, nothing specifies you have to go until you are proficient. So, if you want just a +1 to offset a -1 ability modifier.
I thought about this as well. An option would be selecting a language or tool might just be "1 point"? Of course, tools can be very useful, and can be +x proficiency bonus when used, so this might be too much. Perhaps a language is 1 point, a tool is 2 (gained over two levels?).
I'm not sure, I'm certain there'd be someway to iron it out.
I'd say tools, with specific exceptions, could work that way. E.g. thieves' tools, herbalism kit, and maybe disguise kit, are all pretty powerful things compared to most other tools (thieves' tools especially). Other artisanal tools, proficiency with them will come up only once in a blue moon, so spending one point to pick them up seems fair.
Yeah, gonna be a problem with any kind of detailed point-buy skill system, I'm afraid. 3.x did it so badly that it's kind of poisoned the well; I think this is probably about as good as one can get.
An extremely common problem in most large-scale multiplayer online games (not just MMOs, they're just notorious for it) is hostile and antagonistic behavior, frequently undertaken with glee at being able to exclude "bad" players or righteous indignation at the affront of a "bad" player sullying the game experience.
This sort of thing is just generally referred to as players being "toxic." It's most extreme in games which emphasize competition. World of Warcraft has gotten particularly bad in the past 4-5 years, because it introduced systems which reward players for running with maximum speed and efficiency, and punish everyone in the group if anyone lags behind (the details aren't important; just suffice it to say that it costs everyone in the group a lot of grinding time if even one player is "lagging behind".) League of Legends, another major part of the online multiplayer space, is so notoriously toxic that it's actually starting to hurt their ability to grow the game.
Long story short, the gleeful ones derive pleasure from driving away so-called "bad" players, while the righteously indignant ones see it as their solemn duty, in order to protect the game from said bad influences. This almost always actually means folks being horrifically judgmental, biased, and unbelievably nasty to others, including all sorts of utterly unnecessary name-calling and whatever else.
We neither need nor would benefit from gatekeeping the hobby from so-called "bad" players. To even make gestures in that direction is a dangerous precedent. This does not mean that we should for any reason tolerate toxicity in the other direction, we absolutely should oppose folks trying to exploit or abuse others. But in the vast majority of cases, a "bad" player is merely an ignorant player, or an inexperienced player, or a struggling player. Being constructive and supportive is much, much better than aggressively hunting down and expelling "bad" players.
And, frankly? I think we can all recognize that we've all had at least one time where it was us. We were the bad player. We were the one who didn't understand, or who was tired and just wanted to coast a bit, or who was putting the cart before the horse.
Mmos are not the slam dunk you are hoping for them to give you on this topic either.they too have faced the same sort of kneejerk defense of players called out for being a jerk in ways that impact the fun of others.
An extremely common problem in most large-scale multiplayer online games (not just MMOs, they're just notorious for it) is hostile and antagonistic behavior, frequently undertaken with glee at being able to exclude "bad" players or righteous indignation at the affront of a "bad" player sullying the game experience.
This sort of thing is just generally referred to as players being "toxic." It's most extreme in games which emphasize competition. World of Warcraft has gotten particularly bad in the past 4-5 years, because it introduced systems which reward players for running with maximum speed and efficiency, and punish everyone in the group if anyone lags behind (the details aren't important; just suffice it to say that it costs everyone in the group a lot of grinding time if even one player is "lagging behind".) League of Legends, another major part of the online multiplayer space, is so notoriously toxic that it's actually starting to hurt their ability to grow the game.
Long story short, the gleeful ones derive pleasure from driving away so-called "bad" players, while the righteously indignant ones see it as their solemn duty, in order to protect the game from said bad influences. This almost always actually means folks being horrifically judgmental, biased, and unbelievably nasty to others, including all sorts of utterly unnecessary name-calling and whatever else.
We neither need nor would benefit from gatekeeping the hobby from so-called "bad" players. To even make gestures in that direction is a dangerous precedent. This does not mean that we should for any reason tolerate toxicity in the other direction, we absolutely should oppose folks trying to exploit or abuse others. But in the vast majority of cases, a "bad" player is merely an ignorant player, or an inexperienced player, or a struggling player. Being constructive and supportive is much, much better than aggressively hunting down and expelling "bad" players.
And, frankly? I think we can all recognize that we've all had at least one time where it was us. We were the bad player. We were the one who didn't understand, or who was tired and just wanted to coast a bit, or who was putting the cart before the horse.
How is sitting at the same table as someone and commenting on their behavior "hunting" them down? Are you suggesting that there is no line that Bob can cross where Alice & Cindy are justified in telling him to stop ruining their fun because they feel the game they are playing requires more than simply showing up?
This brings to mind Lazarus Long's quote: "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
D&D, like many games, has long rewarded specialization over diversification. You pile all your eggs in one basket, you get amazing returns.
That this leaves you with a crippling weakness when your strength is negated or irrelevant is not something the game usually protects against- 4e took a stab at it, but generally, if your class isn't good at a thing, it takes a lot of effort to shore up that weak point, effort that could be put to use making yourself better at your main thing.
And that's fine, if we look at D&D as a team-based game, where every character has a niche. Unfortunately, my experience is that party optimization is rarely a concern for players, beyond the basic "hey who is going to heal us?". Lopsided groups can and do exist, and the system nor the rulebooks really tell you what to do about it as a DM (beyond the old-school approach of, "when they die, they'll figure it out", lol).
Which is perfectly cromulent for some groups- but we live in an era where pick-up groups are a fairly common occurrence for some- I started playing 5e through Adventurer's League, and many online games are "4-6 people who don't know each other very well" (which, if you think about it, describes a great many adventuring parties!).
The game could stand to make diversifying easier, since the amount of skills most characters are proficient can be pretty woeful when compared to we modern-day humans. And you can't even say "well, D&D worlds are more like Earth's past with worse education standards" when we have wizard and bard colleges in many settings! Even early D&D relied heavily on Sage NPC's who had vast knowledge when compared to PC's.
The real thing that strikes me as interesting about all this is the fact that having multiple people trained in a skill doesn't really do a lot for the game. Sure, that means there's more opportunities to take the Help action, I suppose, but the game isn't built to make that a huge benefit- there's lots of ways to get advantage, and even quasi-advantage (like adding a d4 or d6 to a roll) out there.
And sure, maybe a player wants to have a weakness. That's perfectly acceptable, but I think it's equally acceptable for someone to get tired of constantly falling down when trying to climb a tree, or always risking drowning when they come into contact with water like many video game protagonists! And the game isn't friendly to attempts to overcome such a weakness, beyond snickering at you for deciding that taking Animal Handling or Medicine over Athletics, no matter how well it suits you character concept.
Just to reiterate, you options are all optional! Multiclassing, Feats, and Downtime aren't available by default, and I hear a lot of people like it that way!
And when you look at fictional examples of fantasy characters, the kinds of people you might want your character to emulate, you find many veritable polymaths and most likely multiclassed individuals roaming about- Conan, for example, speaks a dozen languages and has tried his hands at just as many professions, if not more!
I'm starting up a game of my own fairly soon, and I think I'll experiment with opportunities for characters to gain more proficiencies and see how that goes. Of course, at the same time, I'll also have to make skills matter more- in my 5e experience, there's several skills that seem to be rarely invoked, which is another problem entirely.
Did I say it was impossible for someone to exhibit toxic behavior? Nope. Not once.
But you'll notice, this presenter highlighted what bad gatekeeping is. He included in that trying to drive people away simply because they have a different personality or play style. He called this out explicitly as both wrong and indefensible. Yet here you are, saying that someone who leverages rules when they feel they are not personally capable of a task is necessarily "ruining the fun" of everyone else.
You have literally given me ammunition with this video, not defended your position:
"First, haha, if you're a game master, and you feel someone isn't a good fit for the group, don't be too hasty to kick someone out. The first step is always talking with them, discussing what the issue might be and seeing if you can resolve it. I've been able to resolve the majority of problems in my games simply by putting on my big boy pants and talking to my players..."
Instead, you have immediately leapt to the idea that nope, this person is bad and wrong because they aren't directly contributing to the fun of the game, thus we can and should exclude them not just from a given table, but from the hobby in general. Which this video explicitly calls out as the bad form of gatekeeping...exactly like I was saying.
Mmos are not the slam dunk you are hoping for them to give you on this topic either.they too have faced the same sort of kneejerk defense of players called out for being a jerk in ways that impact the fun of others.
I had already seen this video. It is, as you just said, "not the slam dunk you are hoping for." It is in fact quite critical of how this ridiculous situation came to be.
Because it literally is the conclusion that merely being ignorant—something every human being necessarily must be until they learn—is somehow "rude" to existing players, and thus existing players are somehow justified in treating merely ignorant players like $#¡†. The video itself dissects exactly how much of a problem this flawed logic is, if you've actually watched it. It calls out that one of the specific problems caused by it is that it strangles growth for a game, by driving off new players before they have the chance to learn and become informed, thus dooming WoW (or any similarly gatekeeping-plagued MMO) to a slow death by attrition. Something WoW has already had to stare in the face.
This isn't a "kneejerk defense." It is an actually demonstrable problem that a huge, huge number of real players demonstrate. They exploit the alleged excuse of "well I was just trying to help them play better" to insult, demean, hurt, and (ultimately) drive away so-called "bad" players. Their goal, to ensure that only putatively worthy players remain, instead becomes "be as destructive as possible to anyone who doesn't play the way I think they should." There's a reason I cited specific games, and the specific things in them which encourage this toxic behavior, rather than just making an airy-fairy statement without any grounding in fact or experience.
Because, yes, I have played both LoL and WoW, and have seen their "git gud" toxicity first hand. It's not pretty, and it's definitely not good for the game. Even the actual people who run each game explicitly say that and have invested millions of dollars into trying to fix it, mostly without success.
Are you suggesting that there is no line that Bob can cross where Alice & Cindy are justified in telling him to stop ruining their fun because they feel the game they are playing requires more than simply showing up?
Because anyone who actually read my post would not need to ask this question. The answer is already present. I admit, I am prone to logorrhea, so perhaps it got lost in there. But it is there.
If for some reason you can't find it, the answer is "no, there's definitely a line, you're just far, far away from demonstrating anyone has crossed it."
It takes a lot more to "ruin" other players' fun than merely showing up and not contributing all that much. Ruining fun requires actual effort of some kind. The inoffensively silent player is neither a help nor a hurt. Your conflation of "failure to be a constantly positive and constructive force at all times" with "actively and intentionally ruining everyone else's fun" is precisely the flawed, destructive illogic that makes gamer gatekeeping such a huge issue.
(Just in case you really can't find it, bolded for emphasis: "This does not mean that we should for any reason tolerate toxicity in the other direction, we absolutely should oppose folks trying to exploit or abuse others. But in the vast majority of cases, a 'bad' player is merely an ignorant player, or an inexperienced player, or a struggling player. Being constructive and supportive is much, much better than aggressively hunting down and expelling 'bad' players.")
Good try though, attempting to paint me as an extremist apologist for player toxicity.
Did I say it was impossible for someone to exhibit toxic behavior? Nope. Not once.
But you'll notice, this presenter highlighted what bad gatekeeping is. He included in that trying to drive people away simply because they have a different personality or play style. He called this out explicitly as both wrong and indefensible. Yet here you are, saying that someone who leverages rules when they feel they are not personally capable of a task is necessarily "ruining the fun" of everyone else.
You have literally given me ammunition with this video, not defended your position:
"First, haha, if you're a game master, and you feel someone isn't a good fit for the group, don't be too hasty to kick someone out. The first step is always talking with them, discussing what the issue might be and seeing if you can resolve it. I've been able to resolve the majority of problems in my games simply by putting on my big boy pants and talking to my players..."
Instead, you have immediately leapt to the idea that nope, this person is bad and wrong because they aren't directly contributing to the fun of the game, thus we can and should exclude them not just from a given table, but from the hobby in general. Which this video explicitly calls out as the bad form of gatekeeping...exactly like I was saying.
I had already seen this video. It is, as you just said, "not the slam dunk you are hoping for." It is in fact quite critical of how this ridiculous situation came to be.
Because it literally is the conclusion that merely being ignorant—something every human being necessarily must be until they learn—is somehow "rude" to existing players, and thus existing players are somehow justified in treating merely ignorant players like $#¡†. The video itself dissects exactly how much of a problem this flawed logic is, if you've actually watched it. It calls out that one of the specific problems caused by it is that it strangles growth for a game, by driving off new players before they have the chance to learn and become informed, thus dooming WoW (or any similarly gatekeeping-plagued MMO) to a slow death by attrition. Something WoW has already had to stare in the face.
This isn't a "kneejerk defense." It is an actually demonstrable problem that a huge, huge number of real players demonstrate. They exploit the alleged excuse of "well I was just trying to help them play better" to insult, demean, hurt, and (ultimately) drive away so-called "bad" players. Their goal, to ensure that only putatively worthy players remain, instead becomes "be as destructive as possible to anyone who doesn't play the way I think they should." There's a reason I cited specific games, and the specific things in them which encourage this toxic behavior, rather than just making an airy-fairy statement without any grounding in fact or experience.
Because, yes, I have played both LoL and WoW, and have seen their "git gud" toxicity first hand. It's not pretty, and it's definitely not good for the game. Even the actual people who run each game explicitly say that and have invested millions of dollars into trying to fix it, mostly without success.
Ah, but that wasn't what was described by you and others, was it? It was driving away people who don't play well enough.
Did you actually read my post?
Because anyone who actually read my post would not need to ask this question. The answer is already present. I admit, I am prone to logorrhea, so perhaps it got lost in there. But it is there.
If for some reason you can't find it, the answer is "no, there's definitely a line, you're just far, far away from demonstrating anyone has crossed it."
It takes a lot more to "ruin" other players' fun than merely showing up and not contributing all that much. Ruining fun requires actual effort of some kind. The inoffensively silent player is neither a help nor a hurt. Your conflation of "failure to be a constantly positive and constructive force at all times" with "actively and intentionally ruining everyone else's fun" is precisely the flawed, destructive illogic that makes gamer gatekeeping such a huge issue.
(Just in case you really can't find it, bolded for emphasis: "This does not mean that we should for any reason tolerate toxicity in the other direction, we absolutely should oppose folks trying to exploit or abuse others. But in the vast majority of cases, a 'bad' player is merely an ignorant player, or an inexperienced player, or a struggling player. Being constructive and supportive is much, much better than aggressively hunting down and expelling 'bad' players.")
Good try though, attempting to paint me as an extremist apologist for player toxicity.
No... I described earlier how that behavior is bad and harmful to the fun of others at the table. You've written at extreme length with significant fisking channeling Septa Unella in order to push back against everyone who has done so since then but have yet to describe that original behavior yourself or make any effort to explain why the rest of the table must simply accept that unfun hit to their fun in silence without pushing back. The behavior is not acceptable and your defense of it depends entirely on it being granted some blessed status of absolute acceptance no matter how it affects others at the table.
