D&D General How much do you care about rule change specifics?

[Ruin Explorer]

Does it actually bother you?

100% yes.

Call me princess and the pea or w/e but my long, lived experience is that specific rules and rules changes have a gigantic effect on how much the game is actually enjoyed at the table by people I've played with, and also a significant impact on the prep the DM (usually me for most of that time) has to do.

It's not just being "different", I don't think I've ever been annoyed merely by a rule being different - that would be nonsensical to me - it's about being better/worse, which is usually what they actually are. About the specifics.

And often they are better, frankly. Sometimes a rules change that seems small can butterfly effect into the game being significantly more fun (albeit I can't think an example off-hand).

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Are you expecting people to complain about methodology that doesn't affect them in a negative way?

Am I missing some mega thread where people actually provide proof for their opinions? Because all I see while lurking are hypotheticals and theory crafting, and I'd be hard pressed to trust either more than a flawed survey.

I think thats the issue here. The flawed data is all we have. Musings of Enworlders and napkin math are no more reliable. So we must resort to interpretations of flawed data, or settle for no data at all. Neither is going to lead to anyone "winning" any arguments on the internet.

So maybe we don't talk about the flawed methodology because we have nothing better. Telling someone their evidence is flawed doesn't prove anything, it's still a larger sample than any of us have.

 

[bloodtide]

Not much...but then I don't care much about the "rules" in the first place.

Once I bought a game and looked through the rules. Some of the rules were nice and looked like fun....and some of the rules were dump and pure crap.

So I changed all the rules I did not like, and added a bunch of rules and made my own, unique game.

So, yea, I don't really care about changes "they" make.....

 

[kayakingpoodle]

For me and the majority of the people I play with in respect to 5e vs 5.5e the only reason anyone cares is strictly based on the way wizbro chose to implement the 5.5e rules in the character generation tools. If there was a toggle or other significant way to divorce 5.5e from 5e we wouldn't care at all about any difference in the rulesets. Wizbro made the choice, they can suffer the consequences! Less than 1 out of 10 players in my groups use DDB in game. Many use it for character mapping, and level changes. To the point of abusing the free trial to drop a character into a campaign with a free email account to not pay for content sharing. Thanks Google et al for the loop hole! When the campaign gets full we just kick old free trial pc's and move on! Though most of us have found spreadsheets, and add the relative content to build and level up our characters from the physical books we own. Way cheaper and no wizbro overlord to change our game.

Maps was cool, and looks to get better all the time, but physical maps and minis are way more fun, especially when you considere how inexpensive the new 2d minis are plus they're so much easier to cart around.

Wizbro can build the walls, we will just climb, go through, them or knock them down!

DDB gets more cumbersome everytime wizbro "upgrades" it.

 

[Piperken]

I keep seeing people post about how they are so very unhappy with the 2024 rule changes, or with Tasha's rule changes, or whatever. I just can't really summon up enough GAS to be particularly upset. And I realized that has pretty much always been true for me. I didn't and don't care about changes to the thief table between B/X and BECMI, or about most of the rules differences between 3.0 and 3.5. I just play the game that is presented in the books, with the caveat that sometimes I change a rule because that rule is dumb (not because it is different than it used to be).

So I am just curious how much other folks actually care about rule changes between supplements and revisions and half editions. Does it actually bother you

I hope you don't mind I highlighted this; I felt like I should because while it is clear you've not been very unhappy about changes made to D&D, you have cared enough to change a rule, because you felt strongly that a rule was dumb.

I'd advocate that at a certain threshold of rule changes made because said rules were dumb, or for other valid reasons (ymmv), one might become frustrated with the state of the game they are playing.

The answer to my level of care about a game is, that I care a lot when rule changes:

• Are not consistent in their quality
• Beg for errata shortly after release
• Don't align in play with what the purported goals in design were

5E 2014 has been around for some time; 5E 2024 needs seasoning (and goodness, more content!).

 

[Laurefindel]

I keep seeing people post about how they are so very unhappy with the 2024 rule changes, or with Tasha's rule changes, or whatever. I just can't really summon up enough GAS to be particularly upset. And I realized that has pretty much always been true for me. I didn't and don't care about changes to the thief table between B/X and BECMI, or about most of the rules differences between 3.0 and 3.5. I just play the game that is presented in the books, with the caveat that sometimes I change a rule because that rule is dumb (not because it is different than it used to be).

So I am just curious how much other folks actually care about rule changes between supplements and revisions and half editions. Does it actually bother you?

I had this nice jacket. Sheepskin bomber style, really heavy and warm. I loved it and wore it until it practically fell apart.

Now I have a new one, very similar but you know, not quite the same. It has buttons instead of a zipper, it’s not as heavy and not as warm, which is an advantage in-between seasons really. It’s not exactly the same shade of brown and though I’ve been told this one fits me better, I still miss the old one. It’s just a jacket, nothing to be really upset about, but I care about those little changes and preferred the old one. Only, I feel I can’t really wear the old one. Not in presence of my wife anyway.

My relationship with D&D is similar; it’s a bunch of little changes over a product that is essentially the same and in some ways superior, but that I don’t like as much. While nobody is going to disown me if I play the old version, I’m encouraged to play the new one because it fits better, and it’s not falling apart. Yet I like the older one better, flaws and strengths and all. I grew into it and felt attached in ways that are not rational. It feels silly to spill digital ink over this yet here I am, longing for my old jacket and 5.0.

 

[Yaarel]

I care deeply about rules, especially that they are versatile and 'elegant', as simple as possible but not simpler.

I like the rules updates of 2024. Depending on a particular rule I range from neutral (Weapon Mastery) to enthusiastic (ability score adjustments via Background rather than species ... and the word 'species').

If I remember correctly, the only new rule I find awkward is the weirdly inflexible way that only certain backgrounds can gain certain background feats. Nevertheless the rules instruct the DM to modify and create backgrounds, so technically the inflexibility is a nonissue, but I feel future updates can make this clearer, and perhaps make the go-tos a bit more flexible.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

I care deeply about rules, especially that they are versatile and 'elegant', as simple as possible but not simpler.

I like the rules updates of 2024. Depending on a particular rule I range from neutral (Weapon Mastery) to enthusiastic (ability score adjustments via Background rather than species ... and the word 'species').

If I remember correctly, the only new rule I find awkward is the weirdly inflexible way that only certain backgrounds can gain certain background feats. Nevertheless the rules instruct the DM to modify and create backgrounds, so technically the inflexibility is a nonissue, but I feel future updates can make this clearer, and perhaps make the go-tos a bit more flexible.

What edition said not to make the game work for your table? Unless you play AL who cares about the rules, you can always vote with your feet.

 

[Yaarel]

What edition said not to make the game work for your table? Unless you play AL who cares about the rules, you can always vote with your feet.

The 2024 rules-as-written instruct the DM to create new backgrounds (or import new backgrounds from an other setting). In the Players Handbook in the section "Creating a Character", the rules say: "You can choose any of the backgrounds detailed in chapter 4, and your DM might offer additional backgrounds as options."

However because this vital openendedness in backgrounds is in one place in chapter 2, but not in chapter 4 that discusses the backgrounds, the intended customizability is not-at-all clear. The DM is 'supposed' to create new backgrounds for whatever campaign that the players are adventuring in. The intention is, the DM needs to regulate these background options to ensure they all make sense within the context of the setting. In this way, when players choose a background, they are investing themselves in a narrative immersion in certain features of the world. However, this is not clear enough. The DM 'should' be creating backgrounds and negotiating with players to customize a background ... as long as the customizations have somewhere in world where such learning makes sense.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

The 2024 rules-as-written instruct the DM to create new backgrounds (or import new backgrounds from an other setting). In the Players Handbook in the section "Creating a Character", the rules say: "You can choose any of the backgrounds detailed in chapter 4, and your DM might offer additional backgrounds as options."

However because this vital openendedness in backgrounds is in one place in chapter 2, but not in chapter 4 that discusses the backgrounds, the intended customizability is not-at-all clear. The DM is 'supposed' to create new backgrounds for whatever campaign that the players are adventuring in. The intention is, the DM needs to regulate these background options to ensure they all make sense within the context of the setting. In this way, when players choose a background, they are investing themselves in a narrative immersion in certain features of the world. However, this is not clear enough. The DM 'should' be creating backgrounds and negotiating with players to customize a background ... as long as the customizations have somewhere in world where such learning makes sense.

So character creation is now yet another onus on the DM?
Hard pass!

Players bear the burden of creating a character suitable for the game agreed to in a session 0, full stop!