D&D General Ignoring the rules!

[tetrasodium]

Never said XP was punishment, please reread if you got that from what I said. I've also never talked up Milestone as part of this, so trying to tar ti doesn't actually affect anything I'm saying.

And what I said was that your stated intent was to use it as punishment.

And it came across as a rule change how you explained it: "tedious and pointless having to regularly wait for or rebalance the session plans just because Bob knows being late or skipping again won't cost him progress."

There's no indication that that was whole theoretical and never actually happened at your table and might not be an actual problem you'd encounter. Sorry, I read that as a rule change to stop 'Bob' from showing up late or skipping, as you said. If there never was a Bob, you can understand my confusion

You misstarget why its's a tedious and pointless leading to drawing bad conclusions to level accusations of punishment/punishing of players. With experience the rebalancing for Bob is less and less of a factor over the life of a campaign that is likely to last for a year or more and end in low to mid teen levels. The group is going to be far less reluctant to start adventuring while missing Bob and not as likely to treat it like Tomb Of horrors ten foot pole tapping & such when Bob is a level or two behind. It also means that I don't need to give Bob's PC as much weight as the other players when designing encounters once the gap starts forming and growing, that makes it pointless to rebalance things too much if Bob isn't there for the encounter.

Splitting hairs so finely over what exact part of experience or who you are pointing at while declaring punish[ment|ing] after starting out with questionable assumptions like that makes it feel even more like taking offense that someone else doesn't use milestones. The whole argument for milestones against experience too often tends to feel a bit too quick and heavy on charges of gm bullying and shaming over punishment/punishing of players for my tastes, that and the fact that I'm generally considered to be fair as a gm making for even more reason for me to avoid it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I like complex monsters, but only now and then. A constant diet of complexity doesn't do much for me personally, especially for something that's only going to exist for 15 minutes. Meanwhile I can play simple monsters as interesting because of improvised actions and tactics, roleplay and visuals.

Really for me though, it's all about setting the mood and what kind of scene I want for the game.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong - if I had to chose one or the other, I'd go for simple monster over complex monster (most of the time). I suppose if D&D had a slightly more nuanced martial combat system built into its core, an Ogre would be more interesting. I wouldn't want THAT to be complex either, so I might be asking for the impossible.

Then again, I'm only really advocating for each creature to have 1-3 things that they can do. I don't mind creatures that break out of that constraint, but I think that a system that makes those sorts of creatures act like more-than-one creature, if you follow me, would be the way to go.

Similar, though not exactly, to say, 4e's "Elites" that were like "double creatures" and "Solos" (that were like "quadruple creatures" - only lean into that concept more than 4e did.

So something that is more complicated would be designed quite literally like it was mor than one creature at the same time, if that makes sense.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'd invite the two of you to take a look at the 13th Age monsters for free on their SRD. The original monsters in the core book were boring D&D-clones. But in the Bestiary and Bestiary 2 they came up with a bunch of interesting ones.

13th Age normally only does a single attack (PCs scale by level - it's a 10 level game and they do [level]dX weapon damage, adding in their ability bonus once, twice or more based on tier of play, with the Hit showing a successful pulling off and some having miss damage showing you're still wearing them down in the exchange. And as a mechanic that cares about the raw number on the d20 rolled to hit to use that to signal opportunities. For example, a flying creature might get a bonus wing buffet attack on a even attack roll, or the Orc Archer rolls to attack a random nearby creature on a 1-5.

They also have "Nastier Specials" - special abilities you can add if you want to make them cooler. And mook rules that are more mature than D&D 4e. And monster roles.

They just hit the sweet spot for me between being dirt easy to run without being boring sacks of HPs.

(The Bestiaries have lots not in the SRD, such as tactics, encounter building, scenario use - all sorts of stuff to help you build adventures and use them in them.)

Hmmm... I tried 13th Age when it first launched an thought that it was on the right track in general, but not quite there - or not quite what I needed. I have respect for its designers and I'll take your advice and have a look! I've been working (slowly) on coming up with something that I would like that I can 'port into 5e (hopefully without anyone noticing).

 

[R_J_K75]

Let's talk about ignoring rules and how great it is! Don't like a rule? Just ignore it. Great DMs have been ignoring rules for decades!

Personally, as a DM I don't recall modifying rules or ignoring any intentionally. Only one I can think of is I stopped having players track mundane equipment and decided that as adventurers it was assumed they would be adequately supplied. I ended up creating a table based on item rarity for the players to roll on to see if they had a particular item. One instance that comes to mind is the PCs were faced with a locked door in a dungeon. One of the players asked me if they may have come across the key exploring another part of the dungeon. It seemed plausible to me, so I let them roll and there was a 10% chance on the table and turns out they made it. This was all within reason, for a player to just show up one session in a shiny new set of plate mail wasn't going to fly.

I played in a 3E D&D game where the DM changed and ignored rules without telling us until it came up in play. It quickly became apparent that my expectations of the game weren't being met and we weren't on the same page literally. His interpretation, omission and implementation of the rules really negatively affected my character build and game play. Had I known this beforehand, I would have made a different character at best, or probably opted out of the game entirely.

I've always been a firm believer that if a group of people agree to play a certain rule set it should be safe for anyone in the group that reads those rules they can expect to create and play a character based on those rules. Obviously, there are exceptions but that's my baseline. We never change or ignore a rule unless the group all agrees to do so. I don't mind if a DM has house rules as long as I know beforehand. Certain things can be omitted from the game, and it makes no difference but there are some rules that if left out can seriously affect the game. Just my opinion.

 

[Aurel Guthrie]

I seem to mostly do away with item attunement.

We keep attunement. But we make it proficiency-based, with artificers getting more infusions when they'd normally get more attunement. We run very high-magic games, so we still have to choose which items to attune to, but we don't feel as limited

 

[Blue]

Splitting hairs so finely over what exact part of experience or who you are pointing at while declaring punish[ment|ing] after starting out with questionable assumptions like that makes it feel even more like taking offense that someone else doesn't use milestones. The whole argument for milestones against experience too often tends to feel a bit too quick and heavy on charges of gm bullying and shaming over punishment/punishing of players for my tastes, that and the fact that I'm generally considered to be fair as a gm making for even more reason for me to avoid it.

The fact that I never talked up milestones in this instance and have reminded you that several times as you keep trying to ascribe that as my motive, and yet you still try to attribute what I am saying to trying to XP shame is astounding.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

The fact that I never talked up milestones in this instance and have reminded you that several times as you keep trying to ascribe that as my motive, and yet you still try to attribute what I am saying to trying to XP shame is astounding.

I wonder why there is so much passion behind the milestone vs xp debate. When you think about it, in many cases they are functionally the same. For example; most DMs, that I know of, award XP out of combat which means XP is awarded by DM fiat. Milestone is awarded by DM fiat. Even if XP is only awarded for combat, the DM is in full control of that too. Even if following prescribed XP per monster, the DM controls the monsters. Murderhobo of innocents isn't going to be relevant XP source past the first few levels.

It feels like tribalism over, possibly, the least influencial decision a group can make in regards to the game as a whole. In both "systems" the DM controls all the levers. Both systems amount to "DM tells me when I level."

It actually boggles my mind.

EDIT: This has nothing to do with the conversation you were having. Its just a thought that I had when reading your comment.

 

[payn]

I wonder why there is so much passion behind the milestone vs xp debate. When you think about it, in many cases they are functionally the same. For example; most DMs, that I know of, award XP out of combat which means XP is awarded by DM fiat. Milestone is awarded by DM fiat. Even if XP is only awarded for combat, the DM is in full control of that too. Even if following prescribed XP per monster, the DM controls the monsters. Murderhobo of innocents isn't going to be relevant XP source past the first few levels.

It feels like tribalism over, possibly, the least influencial decision a group can make in regards to the game as a whole. In both "systems" the DM controls all the levers. Both systems amount to "DM tells me when I level."

It actually boggles my mind.

EDIT: This has nothing to do with the conversation you were having. Its just a thought that I had when reading your comment.

First of all, there is no universal answer to this, though, if you listen to folks its not that mysterious. Folks who use XP see it as a D&D/RPG sacred cow. Its important to the feeling and operation of the game. Alternatively, folks who prefer milestone like the ease of GM load and the emphasis on putting RP back in front of the G. For these folks its a night and day difference to their RPG experience.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

First of all, there is no universal answer to this, though, if you listen to folks its not that mysterious. Folks who use XP see it as a D&D/RPG sacred cow. Its important to the feeling and operation of the game. Alternatively, folks who prefer milestone like the ease of GM load and the emphasis on putting RP back in front of the G. For these folks its a night and day difference to their RPG experience.

That leads to the question; would XP be used if it wasn't "grandfathered" in? Let's say hypothetically, milestone had been the default since the start, and XP was a construct of 5e. Does anyone use that optional rule? I bet many fewer people do. Does that mean it's impressive that milestone has overcome that hurdle to the extent it has?

I think there are a few examples of mechanics and rules that are grandfathered into the system, that wouldn't be nearly as popular if they were a new feature in 5e.

Reinforces the idea that people like, in D&D, what they started with. Which means 5e will fundamentally change D&D for decades to come.

 

[payn]

That leads to the question; would XP be used if it wasn't "grandfathered" in? Let's say hypothetically, milestone had been the default since the start, and XP was a construct of 5e. Does anyone use that optional rule? I bet many fewer people do. Does that mean it's impressive that milestone has overcome that hurdle to the extent it has?

I think there are a few examples of mechanics and rules that are grandfathered into the system, that wouldn't be nearly as popular if they were a new feature in 5e.

Reinforces the idea that people like, in D&D, what they started with. Which means 5e will fundamentally change D&D for decades to come.

Interesting food for thought. PF2 still has XP even though Paizo really ran with the milestone idea since PF1/PFS. The system has been simplified to basically 100 XP for every level. There isnt individual payouts, reductions for MC, costs for magic items, etc... Im curious if this is enough for folks that like to use XP? For example, I love alignment and am bummed at its declined state in 5E. Like XP, if I want to do anything above the basics, I gotta do it myself. I suppose a mention is better than a complete removal...

On the other hand, while (dis)advantage wasnt unheard of in fantasy RPGs, its a major componant of 5E. Not a legacy item but a new mechanic thats taken well to most folks since 5E dropped. So, I think the change needs to meet two crtieria. First, it needs to have a percieved value to ease of use. (dis)advantage is not complicated and easy to apply in most situations. PF2 XP takes very little calculation and is applied easily. Second, it has to feel right from a legacy perspective.

The second bit isnt as impenetrable as you might think. For example, PF2 remaster is completely removing alignment and using just ability mods instead of scores. I dont think that would have flown back in '09. Though, after 4E and 5E basically all but removed alignment from the game, folks have lightened up on the demand for its inclusion. I started back in the days of skill play where XP was a sort of gold star sticker for not getting your PC killed. I've moved on to meta plot adventure style of play thats not quite neotrade but leaning that way. I think milestone would have worked fine in 2E, and certainly in 3E, but folks were not ready for it yet. Tides have changed on that sentiment.