D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson You are demonstrating the other big reason why 5e enforces OneTrueWay of gameplay.

No matter how much you try, there is no one true way of 5e gameplay. It's an absolute fact that you are wrong, since I've played 5e several different ways.

It's pretty significant because Darkvision is reliable predictable & always perfectly av in ways that no light source can be
Here's a story about darkness

Spoiler

If you know the creatures cannot hurt you, they will not hurt you. Because they are not real
If you think the creatures can hurt you, they will hurt you. Because they are real to you

Darkvision is the ability to always know that you have a perception check of N against the unknown & to do it with no risk of exposure.

You fail to understand the usefulness of darkness to a dungeon crawl. Disadvantage on a perception check is [2d20 drop highest+mods=N not an unknown. The player knows exactly how much risk a patch of darkness poses can never be left scrambling for a snuffed/fallen torch & will never find themselves trying to wave a visible torch around at unseen creatures in the distant darkness. Not knowing the colors of the unknown things in the dark is a thing of zero consequence

You place too much weight on predictability. So what if I can predictably say that we will trigger pretty much every trap we come across because we are relying on darkvision. That doesn't make triggering all those traps a good thing. So what if I can guarantee us to be ambushed and surprised a ton because we can't see the enemies coming. That doesn't make it a good thing.

Light is also just as predictable as darkness. Groups I've DM'd for and played in have been using continual light coins since 1e. Now the darkness spell can overcome that, but it also overcomes darkvision. Torches were almost never a limiter in any way. You bought them by the dozens and they were obsolete to the continual light in a few levels.

There you go showing more rules & widespread abilities to trivialize the usefulness of meaningful darkness to a dungeon crawl. Bullseye lanterns trade the downside of being heavy & single directional for the ability to hide the light without needing to snuff then relight the lamp, 5e is so generous with carrying capacity & things like darkvision/light cantrips/etc that the weightof light sources is pretty meaningless & the benefits are not even worth considering.

Those same rules have been present since the 1970s.

l assume that you recognize the other noted problems posed to sandbox games in the 5e ruleset too given that you didn't even mention the ways that extreme durability & safe trivialized recovery anywhere

There are no inherent problems in the 5e rule set to sandbox games. None. Safety and durability are irrelevant to being in a sandbox. As long as the DM can create a world for the players to explore and the players can pick and choose where they go, it's a perfect Sandbox. What rules prevent me from doing that in 5e? Not one.

Whether you think PCs are too durable and safe is a completely separate metric that has nothing to do with most playstyles.

 

[Zardnaar]

Based on ... what exactly? Do you have any polls, any justification for your claim other than your personal opinion? Is it everyone's first choice? No, of course not. It's no everyone's second choice either. For pretty much everyone I play with it's our first choice.




They've been using a lot of dismissive terms. D&D is able to get away with murder is another example, or that people don't know that other TTRPGs don't exist which is condescending to a whole lot of people. Calling D&D everyone's second favorite is telling people that they would agree with you if they just knew better.

It's peoples first choice really. Only choice for most.

 

[Oofta]

That's ridiculous. It literally is about control. Control isn't automatically a pejorative. The GM in this situation requires creative control of what ingredients players can and can't add to the game so as to maintain a cohesive vision.

It's about separation of roles in the game. Like we've had for 50 years. You can modify the way the game works of course, but you're complaining about a core assumptions of the game. Don't be surprised by pushback.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's about separation of roles in the game. Like we've had for 50 years. You can modify the way the game works of course, but you're complaining about a core assumptions of the game. Don't be surprised by pushback.

To be fair, while you're not wrong, for fifty years it has been about control. That's what the separation of roles is: who has control over what.

 

[Maxperson]

That's ridiculous. It literally is about control. Control isn't automatically a pejorative. The GM in this situation requires creative control of what ingredients players can and can't add to the game so as to maintain a cohesive vision.

You really don't see how...

"Honestly, it's not even that hard if one gives it more than the moment's thought that it takes to reflexively yell "NO" and cradle the map of one's homebrew world to their chest like a dying child."

...could be taken negatively?

 

[Maxperson]

The problem with the ability is, as written, there are no exceptions. The player is within their rights to just insist that it works.

No. 5e says in several areas that the DM is in charge, not the rules and he can override them. He'd better have a good reason for overriding something like that, but the player is not within his rights to just insist that it works. If the DM has a good reason why it doesn't, then it doesn't.

 

[soviet]

You really don't see how...

"Honestly, it's not even that hard if one gives it more than the moment's thought that it takes to reflexively yell "NO" and cradle the map of one's homebrew world to their chest like a dying child."

...could be taken negatively?

How disingenuous, pretending my post was in relation to something completely different

 

[hawkeyefan]

(Bold emphasis added in both quotations.) The answer to the bolded question above is that the connotation of "the desire for control" is unusually dependent on context. I see it as entirely reasonable and consistent for someone to espouse a preference for a DMing style that features maintaining personal control over the game setting, but simultaneously object to descriptions of the style that seem to bear even a whiff of the bolded sentiment below:

Yes, it’s a very common desire for DMs. As preferences go, it’s fine.

My use of hyperbole in the reason for the preference was because so many people seem unable to articulate the reason for their preference.

The problem with the ability is, as written, there are no exceptions. The player is within their rights to just insist that it works.

Well, there are enough examples in the text (at least the 2014 version) that most DMs would be fine with making exceptions. Clearly plenty of folks here didn’t hesitate to deny usage at times.

But aside from that… why is it a problem? Why is it problematic to give players moves they can make that simply work?

The real key here is to treat the ability as clearly intended - a RP aid that facilitates interaction with the environment and not some player power grab that must be limited/squashed at all costs.

Precisely.

 

[soviet]

No. 5e says in several areas that the DM is in charge, not the rules and he can override them. He'd better have a good reason for overriding something like that, but the player is not within his rights to just insist that it works. If the DM has a good reason why it doesn't, then it doesn't.

But it's not control! Glad we cleared that up

 

[Maxperson]

How disingenuous, pretending my post was in relation to something completely different

Well, no. I followed the chain up to that quote. You responded to Micah who was responding to that post. If you meant something different, you should have differentiated your response sufficiently to tell. There was nothing disingenuous about my post.