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

[TiQuinn]

It's also why these kinds of discussions mostly happen around 5e. 5e is the biggest fish in the pond, and it's not close. So it means a lot more that 5e match one's views than Blades in the Dark does, because 5e has more clout. It's more validating if 1000 people agree with you, than if 50 people do.

Yeah, it's whatever the current version of D&D is. All of the editions of D&D are perfectly fine games that are still playable. But, no. What matters is that the latest version reflects what they want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do wonder if the desire to have some penalty mechanics in the game originates from a general dislike of having metagame discussions during a session?

Instead of saying "Hey, some of the actions your character is taking don't seem to match the picture we all had of your character, is that something we should explore in game?", there's just a general warning of "Your god is giving you dark omens, and might start taking your power if you don't shape up."

To be fair, I'm not a fan of metagame discussions in or out of game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, I hate tracking slots too, but the whole idea of half casters is marred by the fact that D&D was never all that good at making up for the other half and has actively gotten worse at doing so because it no longer knows how to grant non-magical abilities.

That I agree with. WotC doesn't seem to know or care how to deal with PCs without throwing magic at them.

 

[Vaalingrade]

this discussion is in a D&D thread, it was in the context of D&D, but agreed, it is true for other worlds as well that there are classes / professions that fall into a certain frame. You then turned that into a classless TTRPG, which does not really have anything to do with fantasy worlds themselves, and certainly nothing with D&D, it is just a possible representation

I have no idea what you're actually saying here.

the classes are based on these archetypes, and two Fighters in D&D also do not need to have the same abilities, certainly not since 3e.

But you don't actually need classes to fulfill archetypes. Nor do classes need to enforce archetypes.

D&D is one representation of these archetypes, there certainly are other ways to model them as well

That didn't seem to be what you were arguing earlier.

born with certain traits, they still can need training and do not necessarily come out of the womb shooting lightening already

Merlin came out aging backward. Harry Potter (granted he is post-D&D) started talking to snakes and deleting glass without training. Wizard babies aren't necessarily powerless, but uncontrolled and dangerous.

sure, but that is not universal, nor do I believe it is relevant to the discussion

It's relevant because you were framing classes ad necessary for some reason.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Both literature. Not a game.

Dude said 'fantasy worlds'. Nothing about games.

Only time 'game' came into it was to take a shot at using 'superhero' as a lame buzzword.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oh, you're assuming we're stuck with whatever WotC decides to publish. I see the problem.

I mean we're talking about what they're doing in terms of game design, no?

I've got my own cooking, but I'm not here to shill my own work.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sometimes I like to imagine a system where everyone got their abilities at the same rate as everyone else. Wild, huh?

It was all just a beautiful dream. A mirage dashed away by a giant, robed wizard butt.

 

[Maxperson]

I see mechanically punishing a player for trying to make their character more interesting as inherently problematic.

If my cleric becomes an apostate, gets hunted down by inquisitors, and dies trying to fight them, no problem. That's awesome. There's nothing I love more in RP than my character going down in a blaze of glory for something meaningful.

I don't like seeing the character made less. At least long term. If the cleric loses his powers for a time until he atones, I'm okay with that as both a player and a DM. If the cleric strays past the point of atonement, though, he shouldn't left as a super crappy fighter that isn't a fighter class. Better to make an apostate class with some subclasses that such a PC would move into. That way he's on par with his old self and companions, but has still lost his clerical ability.

 

[Maxperson]

Then that comes down to just differing philosophical preferences.

I myself do not feel the need to help players who "just don't know any better". If the DM doesn't know of alternative ways of playing and the players do not know of alternative ways of playing, then they most likely will just play as the game is written. And I do not have an issue with that or find that to be a problem. The game works fine for new players. They can make do.

And I feel this way mainly because if this DM and table players decide at some point that they want something different than what is in the DMG... they can just go looking for alternatives themselves out there in Google Search Gameland and find many different possibilities, rather than rely on a singular variant rule they might get from the DMG had WotC printed any.

That's really my thing-- alternative rules in a DMG are going to be just as useless to a predominant number of tables as the new rule is going to be. So with the exception of that small handful of tables who might like that one alternative variant rule WotC could have included... most tables are going to end up going to Google Search Gameland anyway. So why get upset that we aren't helping that small handful when we couldn't care less about the other mass of the player base who isn't going to be helped by any variant rules? And on top of that... I think it is beneficial that these new DMs and players learn about what actually is out there in Google Search Gameland by having to so! There's so much awesome stuff out there to find that I think expecting them to go in that direction is in fact the better way to approach things.

I'm going to disagree a bit here. There are going to be a not insignificant number of tables who are bothered, but not enough to go scouring the internet for a fix. However, if they see it in the DMG, they will very likely adopt the optional rule.

I'm very disappointed that they removed those from the DMG.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm not thinking it's going to be 'table's' looking for this, but singular actors that are going to impress it upon tables.