D&D 5E Spellcasting Monsters, Spell Slotlessness, Bonus Actions, and Intent

[Micah Sweet]

Sounds horrible to me, but hey to each their own

Which is why there's no objectivity here, just preference.

 

[Remathilis]

I have a 500+ page houserules document, so...

And I can't convince my players to read a one page setting primer, let alone a document bigger than the PHB.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I can't convince my players to read a one page setting primer, let alone a document bigger than the PHB.

They don't have to read it. It's there if they want it, and I refer to it to help players realize their concepts.

 

[GrimCo]

@Micah Sweet
You have strong preference for in game consistency in relation to game mechanics, as in, in game fiction that reflects rules.

On the other hand, personally, most of people i know, don't. They have zero problems with monsters and pc-s playing by different rules and don't even try to explain how with in game fiction.

D&D goes more into later category. It's gamist at it's core and rules aren't there to reinforce fiction. They are there so game can be more or less balanced for optimum playing experience.

I personally don't mind monsters and pc-s having different rules. I like that monsters don't follow same creation rules like pc-s and have some unique abilities. After all, they serve different purpose. Monsters are expected to provide challenge for couple of rounds before they flee or die. Preferably be fun challenge. Pc are there for the long haul. They need more diverse toolkits so they don't become boring and for players to see that power growth.

 

[Micah Sweet]

@Micah Sweet
You have strong preference for in game consistency in relation to game mechanics, as in, in game fiction that reflects rules.

On the other hand, personally, most of people i know, don't. They have zero problems with monsters and pc-s playing by different rules and don't even try to explain how with in game fiction.

D&D goes more into later category. It's gamist at it's core and rules aren't there to reinforce fiction. They are there so game can be more or less balanced for optimum playing experience.

I personally don't mind monsters and pc-s having different rules. I like that monsters don't follow same creation rules like pc-s and have some unique abilities. After all, they serve different purpose. Monsters are expected to provide challenge for couple of rounds before they flee or die. Preferably be fun challenge. Pc are there for the long haul. They need more diverse toolkits so they don't become boring and for players to see that power growth.

I respect your opinion on the matter, truly, but I don't share it, and don't see any value in popularity as a rhetorical point unless all we're talking about is sales. My preference is to focus on modeling in-ficyion properties and using setting logic to make decisions, only turning to gamist solutions when practical gameplay pretty much demands it. Since I grew up on some form of D&D, and my players are familiar with 5e, that's what I use as my gamebase.

 

[Yaarel]

Even if it's allowed under the rules, it's a terrible idea to do so since the players cannot. Having the monsters operate under clearly different standards tends to lead to bad outcomes in my 30+ year gaming experience. Essentially the practice undermines the sense of trust and perception of fairness between players and DM.

Regardless of whether monster are created under the same restrictions that the PCs are (e g. different stat caps or unbalanced personal abilities).

Historically, having one rule for how player characters describe hit point loss, and an other rule for how monsters describe hit point loss, is why there is so much confusion and argument about hit points.

I like monster statblocks being minimal and abstract ... but not too far from what one might expect from a character sheet.

 

[GrimCo]

I respect your opinion on the matter, truly, but I don't share it, and don't see any value in popularity as a rhetorical point unless all we're talking about is sales. My preference is to focus on modeling in-ficyion properties and using setting logic to make decisions, only turning to gamist solutions when practical gameplay pretty much demands it. Since I grew up on some form of D&D, and my players are familiar with 5e, that's what I use as my gamebase.

I'm talking also about preferences. But when we are discussing design of a commercial consumer product that aims for the broadest possible customer base, design choices have to take what is popular into account, since sometimes, like in this case, you can have preferences that are opposed. It's hard to design product that will please all of your customer base, so you choose ones that will please most of them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm talking also about preferences. But when we are discussing design of a commercial consumer product that aims for the broadest possible customer base, design choices have to take what is popular into account, since sometimes, like in this case, you can have preferences that are opposed. It's hard to design product that will please all of your customer base, so you choose ones that will please most of them.

Or you make a product designed to appeal to a less broad audience, because that's what you want to produce and you can still make money off it, just probably not as much.

 

[James Gasik]

Or you make a product designed to appeal to a less broad audience, because that's what you want to produce and you can still make money off it, just probably not as much.

Hard to do when you must kowtow to corporate masters who want increasingly fat wads of cash though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hard to do when you must kowtow to corporate masters who want increasingly fat wads of cash though.

It really, really is. This is why I look to places other than WotC for products that interest me now. Their variety of broad-based appeal simply doesn't appeal to me.