D&D (2024) I have the DMG. AMA!

[Emerikol]

Because it isn't a question of "style of game". It's about choosing to embrace a particular detail of setting cosmology.

If nothing else, there are games where what happens in the world can affect player mechanics and games where they cannot. Two different types of games though further differentiated by other considerations too.

You can play a hard trad, setting first, no plot coupon game in a world where divine magic does not emanate completely and under the total control of the deities. You're choosing to make that one detail a pillar of your entire play.

I have said often that I could adopt a whole variety of ways for divine magic to work. I am also saying that traditional D&D is Deities handing out power and I like that as one of my options and I think it is a good option. I could like some others too and I've said so above.

And really, you're just using deity control over a cleric as a synecdoche for a play style where DMs can choose to invoke mechanical consequences for failing to meet a particular narrative conceit.

Exactly. We want some in game effects to impact player mechanics. We are also the same group of people who thought level drain, ability score drain, magical aging, etc.. were good fun aspects of gameplay. All of those to varying degrees affect mechanics. We want things happening in the world to have a lasting impact on the PC sometimes.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Realisation:

It's is possible that some DMs see a cleric going against tenets be somewhat disrespectful of their world building? Like if it was the player somehow commenting/disapproving on this particular cosmology element?

 

[TwoSix]

Exactly. We want some in game effects to impact player mechanics. We are also the same group of people who thought level drain, ability score drain, magical aging, etc.. were good fun aspects of gameplay. All of those to varying degrees affect mechanics. We want things happening in the world to have a lasting impact on the PC sometimes.

And I do that too, when I play OSR/NSR games. D&D is no longer the same game as what OSR games are championing, and it's not going back to those play styles.

Modern D&D is a neotrad (with trad tendencies) game of player empowerment, and challenges designed to allow the demonstration of character competence. Any evaluation of it outside of that framework is inherently flawed.

 

[Remathilis]

As for those who are complaining about the DM screwing with them. If a DM wants to mess with a player, a rule on clerics is not going to save the situation. Just leave that game. But don't misinterpret good DMing that adheres to a world and reflects the game as the DM messing with you.

The difference is that the bad DM can't use the "I'm just playing by the rules" defense as a shield when people call him out on his bs. A know a lot of DMs who used the "that's the rule" defense when screwing with their players. The less rules that defend bad DMs, the better

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think the rule in 5.5 exists less to protect players who want to roleplay a PC struggling with their faith and more to protect players who want their PC to have a particular set of cool superpowers and are not willing to engage in any fiction that might take them away based on their behavior.

Both are perfectly valid and awesome.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In the case of clerics in D&D, I think they have a deep knowledge of the expectations of their Deity.

Which strips away a lot of interesting ideas dealing with religion.

What is faith if you have perfect knowledge and certainty?

 

[Emerikol]

The difference is that the bad DM can't use the "I'm just playing by the rules" defense as a shield when people call him out on his bs. A know a lot of DMs who used the "that's the rule" defense when screwing with their players. The less rules that defend bad DMs, the better

I disagree because we give up good rules that are fun and engaging to try to avoid something unavoidable with a bad DM.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I disagree because we give up good rules that are fun and engaging to try to avoid something unavoidable with a bad DM.

Fun and engaging to who? The DM who Lucy's the football out from under the player or the player who is left with a useless character because they didn't do what the DM wanted them to?

 

[Emerikol]

And I do that too, when I play OSR/NSR games. D&D is no longer the same game as what OSR games are championing, and it's not going back to those play styles.

Modern D&D is a neotrad (with trad tendencies) game of player empowerment, and challenges designed to allow the demonstration of character competence. Any evaluation of it outside of that framework is inherently flawed.

Well we are still giving our views because we think those views are fun and worth promulgating. If D&D did more to support a variety of playstyles that would be good. I don't mind plot coupons as an optional rule I ignore. I think traditional D&D is incredibly fun. I do not think WOTC is abandoning it for profit. I think they are influenced by the preferences of their designers. I do think WOTC can lay an egg at times but most of the time what they produce the public will follow.

 

[Scribe]

Realisation:

It's is possible that some DMs see a cleric going against tenets be somewhat disrespectful of their world building? Like if it was the player somehow commenting/disapproving on this particular cosmology element?

I don't think so. I don't see it as this adversarial thing.

Clerics channel the powers of the God's. That power can be withheld if the Cleric works against the goals and desires of their God.

It's not about the DM at all. If the Player wants to spit at the feet of their God, they have the ability to do so. Player choice.