D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[Micah Sweet]

So far from the UAs & videos we have seen wotc has shown almost nothing but stuff aimed at players, anything else vaguely hinted at without specifics may as well be vapor at this point. Some of us are not looking at player facing character sheet options as the deciding factor in which of the new systems we ultimately move to.

Yup. The proof is in the pudding regarding anything in 5.5 not about PC superpowers and how they work.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I know that my answer would be mediocre is still bad, but I may tolerate it for just a little longer before deciding I’m wasting my time.

With no intent to bash, this is an example of what I say when I mention some people's idea of "bad" is expansive. This is fine for them, but it does mean their reaction to other people is skewed, because a lot of people would absolutely rather have mediocre gaming than no gaming; that doesn't mean they wouldn't rather have better gaming, though, so complaints they make being responded to with "so just leave" seems off the mark.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So far from the UAs & videos we have seen wotc has shown almost nothing but stuff aimed at players, anything else vaguely hinted at without specifics may as well be vapor at this point. Some of us are not looking at player facing character sheet options as the deciding factor in which of the new systems we ultimately move to.

.... aren't they mostly previewing the Player's Handbook?

As far as I know, they haven't previewed that much from the DMG yet, other than a few glimpses (such as Greyhawk). All of these recent videos have been hyping the PHB.

To be honest, that's usually where the hype goes. In addition, given that it is going to be compatible with 2014 5e, we shouldn't be expecting a major rules revamp. Improvements? Sure. But if you fundamentally don't like 5e, I don't think that anything will make you change your mind.

 

[TwoSix]

Why? One, because it makes me look like less of a schmuck. I had a problem, and I fixed my problem. I didn't just show up here and write posts that seem to imply I'm just holding my breath until WotC solves my problem for me by re-writing the rules to my satisfaction. And two... who knows, maybe someone with a similar problem will see how I've house ruled my game to fix it and think "Hmm, that's a good idea! I think I'll yoink that!" Granted... I suspect that's a much lower occurrence, because I personally suspect that most of the time when posters come on here they aren't looking to solve their own problems, they are just looking to vent. And while some are reasonable about it, a lot of times it seems like it doesn't matter to them who they insult when they do so-- whether it's the designers for not writing things they want, or other players for not having the same feelings they do and thus contributing to the groupthink or survey results that keeps WotC from changing things to they way they want.

To be fair, a lot of people have strong preferences towards codification and clarity. Playing a game where the rules mutate based on personal preference and whim make them feel less attached to the game.

The move from the DIY nature of early AD&D to the "Let's just play RAW" mindset of 3e wasn't a weird aberration; it was popularized because a large portion of the player base was more comfortable with a fixed ruleset.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yep. All of this. I don’t know if people truly don’t know how to have these kinds of discussions, or maybe they do but still feel like they didn’t get what they wanted in the compromise and so gripe here about it, or maybe there was no compromise at all because someone ended up being incapable of it at their table, but it sure seems like this is the best available answer to these kinds of issues.

As I've noted before, people end up having trouble with difficult discussions in all kinds of contexts, why should it be more surprising here? Among other things, some people are really conflict-averse.

 

[TiQuinn]

With no intent to bash, this is an example of what I say when I mention some people's idea of "bad" is expansive. This is fine for them, but it does mean their reaction to other people is skewed, because a lot of people would absolutely rather have mediocre gaming than no gaming; that doesn't mean they wouldn't rather have better gaming, though, so complaints they make being responded to with "so just leave" seems off the mark.

We can probably throw out the words "bad" and "mediocre", and just go with "enjoyable". There was probably a time I would've kept playing a game that I wasn't really enjoying. Maybe there's nothing wrong with the game or the DM or the players. I'm just saying I'm much more willing to walk away from that kind of game now.

I look at it this way - every week I spend upwards of three hours playing TTRPGs, and in my case, it's not with close friends who I would be hanging out with anyways. So, that time better be fun, or else I'll find something else to do. Clearly, that's not everyone's situation.

 

[TiQuinn]

As I've noted before, people end up having trouble with difficult discussions in all kinds of contexts, why should it be more surprising here? Among other things, some people are really conflict-averse.

It's not surprising but it is still the best answer, IMO.

 

[Thomas Shey]

We can probably throw out the words "bad" and "mediocre", and just go with "enjoyable". There was probably a time I would've kept playing a game that I wasn't really enjoying. Maybe there's nothing wrong with the game or the DM or the players. I'm just saying I'm much more willing to walk away from that kind of game now.

The problem is "enjoyable" isn't a binary. A lot of times people will enjoy a game sometimes, and have real problems with it others, either because some aspects of the game are really good and some aren't, or because the GM (and sometimes other players) can be hit or miss. So do you toss out the game because of the bad parts or stick with it because of the good? I'd suggest a lot of people stick with it, but still have problems with it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's not surprising but it is still the best answer, IMO.

No answer is the best one, if, in practice, people aren't going to use it, and that's one where clearly a lot of people aren't.

 

[TiQuinn]

The problem is "enjoyable" isn't a binary. A lot of times people will enjoy a game sometimes, and have real problems with it others, either because some aspects of the game are really good and some aren't, or because the GM (and sometimes other players) can be hit or miss. So do you toss out the game because of the bad parts or stick with it because of the good? I'd suggest a lot of people stick with it, but still have problems with it.

There’s no “problem” here. I’m speaking for myself. If I’m not enjoying the game, I will stop playing it, just like if I’m reading a book that I’m not enjoying, I won’t finish it just to say I finished it. Of course, this doesn’t happen immediately - I give things time to change or to determine if they’re an outlier from the usual.