D&D General The New York Times on D&D

[Belen]

Around the whole customizability thing, one of the things a lot of people like about D&D is it hasn't been as customizeable as some other gamers. There has always been that tension in the D&D fandom around wanting it to be more customizable and flexible versus wanting more restrictions around choice. 3E for example greatly expanded customization. Personally I do think the game is better when choices are meaningful and more constrained around class and race(and all elements of character creation). That doesn't mean I am anti-customization. I like a lot of different games. I just think one of the things that makes D&D work is this aspect of it (which is why I tend to play older editions now----and if I do want a more flexible version of D&D, I will usually go to 3E because of the multi-classing system and skills).

I like it when D&D is customizable in terms of allowing multiple different play styles and flavors of fantasy games.

I would have much prefer that 5.5 made things like feats and weapon masteries optional rules like feats were in 5.0.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I like it when D&D is customizable in terms of allowing multiple different play styles and flavors of fantasy games.

I would have much prefer that 5.5 made things like feats and weapon masteries optional rules like feats were in 5.0.

I was speaking more about character creation

 

[Hussar]

Just to put it into context, here’s a blog fromtwo thousand nine at Grognardia, discussing this:

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/[emoji638][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji637]]]/[emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]][emoji640]/irredeemably-evil.html

I agree that this has far more to do with wanting the “official” blessing on play style and far less to do with any actual issue.

/edit sorry folks. Weirdness means I cannot post links. Google grognardia orcs evil two thousand nine.

 

[TiQuinn]

Sure, but this is ENWorld and part of this discussion here and in the other thread has been about culture.

If the dominant culture gets pushed to RAW and WOTC sets expectations that PHB races are the default and should be RAW, then there is an active push to setting default assumptions at all tables.

I can get behind guidelines or suggestions about the social contract of the game but I cannot get behind a culture that narrowly defines what D&D is in terms of stories and settings.

I’m not sure that is what WotC wants. I would expect even they know the limits of such a thing.

What I believe is the fear that the possibility that one could ever encounter that kind of friction at a table and want to stamp it out, and I think that’s impossible too. The best answer is broaden the hobby as I mentioned, rather than simply cope with a mismatched player/DM.

As you point out, you won’t tolerate insistence on core D&D rules only behavior in your game. I wouldn’t in mine either.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think it is unfair to say people just want to kill stuff because they look different.

If you read the wider discussion about this, people are absolutely saying that not only is it necessary to have intelligent species that PCs can kill because they look different, they're arguing that such a thing is fundamental to Dungeons & Dragons.

If it doesn't apply to you, that's fine. (Good, even!) But it's definitely a recurrent argument being made.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Careful, I got criticized for comparing OS play to Gauntlet.

You got in trouble for repeatedly posting -- only lightly paraphrased -- "I don't understand why people want to play stupid and bad OSR when everyone agrees it's stupid and bad and you all know it's stupid and bad." People spent more than 30 pages patiently explaining to you how a lot of the information you were working off was incomplete or incorrect and your response was "wow, what an echo chamber."

 

[Remathilis]

You got in trouble for repeatedly posting -- only lightly paraphrased -- "I don't understand why people want to play stupid and bad OSR when everyone agrees it's stupid and bad and you all know it's stupid and bad." People spent more than 30 pages patiently explaining to you how a lot of the information you were working off was incomplete or incorrect and your response was "wow, what an echo chamber."

Not what I was talking about, but if you want to restart why I think OS play is bad over here, I'll be willing to post my thesis again.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If you still want your orca to be inherently evil

Those yachts had it coming.

 

[Belen]

If you read the wider discussion about this, people are absolutely saying that not only is it necessary to have intelligent species that PCs can kill because they look different, they're arguing that such a thing is fundamental about Dungeons & Dragons.

If it doesn't apply to you, that's fine. (Good, even!) But it's definitely a recurrent argument being made.

Nope. No one is making this argument.

People have argued that it is fine have inherently evil species but no one has argued the point you just made. D&D continues to have inherently evil species. The only change they made was Orc and that was because they decided to make Orc a playable species.

Orcs are inherently evil in my settings. I still would never allow PCs to just slaughter intelligent creatures just because they are "evil" because that is an evil act and I do not allow folks to play evil characters.

You are free to have your opinion but no one has made that argument.