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

[mamba]

Did they actually say that???

yes, potentially jokingly, but yes they did. Not about the god subject though

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

If you're right, wouldn't any evolution of it from its OSR roots back in the day to what is now also have been inherently flawed? Why is one style good, and another bad?

The answer, as always, is personal preference.

 

[TwoSix]

and I assume that if they discuss the arc, then the character being stripped of their powers by their god can easily be avoided

I would assume so as well!

 

[Scribe]

I (as a 40+ dude) have to wonder if the target Demographic even has context for the more 'Old Testament' version of Gods. Its certainly not taught in school anymore, and unless ones household is traditionally religious, I just wonder if kids today even understand the more 'God fearing' interpretations.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

What is faith if you have perfect knowledge and certainty?

When your gods have empirical existence in your world, the traditional definition of faith becomes less valid.

 

[Emerikol]

yes, potentially jokingly, but yes they did. Not about the god subject though

So it wasn't about players cleric powers cannot be taken by their God?

 

[mamba]

I feel like exploring their character via roleplay isn't going rogue.

I agree, going rogue was about making major changes to your character, like a crisis of faith, without talking to the DM about it

While working with the DM on planning character arcs is a good idea, it shouldn't be mandatory or punished.

it’s not mandatory, but it might lead to misunderstandings, whether you consider these misunderstandings punishment is another matter

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

The player chose that class and that religion's tenets. There is no malice here.

 

[Xenolith234]

So it wasn't about players cleric powers cannot be taken by their God?

No, but it speaks to the mindset they (Crawford specifically) have in that the players should have the upper hand over their DM.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We don't agree on fun that is clear. I have a lot of people who like my gaming style and I like running it. I wish D&D supported us better but they don't. That is really the entire discussion. I'm one of those just saddened that new players of D&D aren't even given the chance at a style they'd probably like a lot better than yours. And some would like yours better no doubt. A matter of taste cannot be disputed.

You seem to be under the misapprehension I only run one style. My Apocalypse World games are not at all in the same style as my OSR-inspired dungeon exploration games are not at all in the same style as my heroic fantasy are very different from my ridiculous Grant Howett single pagers.

Level drain works well because it's a permanent consequence that people want to avoid. It doesn't make the consequence itself that's simple monkeying with numbers good - but that it's there is a good thing. So make a better consequence. There are two value judgements here I'm making

• Consequences >> no consequences.
• Interesting consequences > Boring or crippling consequences.

You seem to think that because you like consequences (we both do) that the ones that they came up with in 1974 are the best possible. And because I think that the consequences present in 1974 (removal of powers, level drain, etc.) are bad and in some cases toxic consequences I dislike all consequences.