D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[EzekielRaiden]

Or, what I imagine is a bit more likely - you'd see a lot of GMs softballing that nominally brutal game, at least for a while.

At which point, we're right back to "the rules are for a game people aren't playing"--and then exactly as @Hussar says, folks will express their frustration at having to massage the rules into a shape they're interested in, so it gets adjusted to fit that, and then we get back to "well the game SHOULD be X". Lather, rinse, repeat until your skin is raw and inflamed and nobody's happy about anything!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

nobody's happy about anything!

The definition of a compromise.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The definition of a compromise.

Nope, as much as the pessimists would like it to be so, that ain't it.

That is actually (close to) the definition of détente. A pause in hostilities, which doesn't serve anyone's direct interests, but which is hoped will lead to actually positive relations in the future. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

"Compromise" actually means that both/all sides accept that they cannot get everything they want, and thus focus primarily on the things they do. It's a real $#!+ compromise if everyone walks away legitimately unhappy--because all that has done is slightly delay the resumption of outright hostilities again.

Actual compromise, compromise that lasts, compromise that isn't just in-name-only but actually achieves something, is instead about two sides deciding what truly matters to them, and finding a way to make those "it really truly matters" things compatible with one another.

I am so over the not just pessimistic but outright false idea that compromise always means everyone is pissed off all the time. It simply, truly, doesn't. And we can point to example after example from history where that (alleged) definition of "compromise" nearly always fails and falls apart--while the definition which requires that both sides find true value, find their interests reasonably satisfied, genuinely results in long-term, successful results in most cases, so long as the people negotiating are doing so in good faith. (If people are negotiating in bad faith, "compromise" can never happen--it's pure manipulation and nothing else.)

And very truly I tell you: If (generic) you can only be happy when you get absolutely 100% of everything (generic) you want every single time...then (generic) you are never negotiating in good faith.

 

[Kromanjon]

Nope, as much as the pessimists would like it to be so, that ain't it.

That is actually (close to) the definition of détente. A pause in hostilities, which doesn't serve anyone's direct interests, but which is hoped will lead to actually positive relations in the future. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

"Compromise" actually means that both/all sides accept that they cannot get everything they want, and thus focus primarily on the things they do. It's a real $#!+ compromise if everyone walks away legitimately unhappy--because all that has done is slightly delay the resumption of outright hostilities again.

Actual compromise, compromise that lasts, compromise that isn't just in-name-only but actually achieves something, is instead about two sides deciding what truly matters to them, and finding a way to make those "it really truly matters" things compatible with one another.

I am so over the not just pessimistic but outright false idea that compromise always means everyone is pissed off all the time. It simply, truly, doesn't. And we can point to example after example from history where that (alleged) definition of "compromise" nearly always fails and falls apart--while the definition which requires that both sides find true value, find their interests reasonably satisfied, genuinely results in long-term, successful results in most cases, so long as the people negotiating are doing so in good faith. (If people are negotiating in bad faith, "compromise" can never happen--it's pure manipulation and nothing else.)

And very truly I tell you: If (generic) you can only be happy when you get absolutely 100% of everything (generic) you want every single time...then (generic) you are never negotiating in good faith.

“A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied”​

― Larry David, Curb Your Enthusiasm: The Complete Seventh Season

It's a quote and something people tend to say in a jovial manner. Take it easy.

 

[Lanefan]

Speculation though. Odds are they won't go full [O]SR.

Of course they won't. I was merely saying "If they did..."

 

[Lanefan]

Or, what I imagine is a bit more likely - you'd see a lot of GMs softballing that nominally brutal game, at least for a while.

And that's fine!

It's far FAR easier on the DM to softball a brutal game than to brutal up a softball game.

 

[Lanefan]

I disagree--flatly. THAC0 complexity crops up every single time you have to make an attack.

If one uses THAC0. Descending AC works just fine without it.

Five obscure ridiculous save categories crop up nearly every time you need to make a save or induce a save.

The save categories never crop up player-side (or they shouldn't, anyway). The DM calls for a saving throw, the player rolls a d20, and the DM checks the appropriate saves matrix then tells the player whether the character saved or not.

(this might not be a good time to tell you my system has eight save categories rather than five...)

 

[Bae'zel]

If one uses THAC0. Descending AC works just fine without it.

The save categories never crop up player-side (or they shouldn't, anyway). The DM calls for a saving throw, the player rolls a d20, and the DM checks the appropriate saves matrix then tells the player whether the character saved or not.

(this might not be a good time to tell you my system has eight save categories rather than five...)

Despite everything, i’ve never really had an issue with saves, although I really appreciate how modern game designers have attempted to give them more “generic” labels. The new Dolmenwood, for example.

Nothing is perfect though, and sometimes figuring out which save is appropriate can be a bit confusing to me, regardless of edition. Even in 5e (should this possession effect use a Wisdom save, as usual, or a Charisma save?).

 

[Lanefan]

Despite everything, i’ve never really had an issue with saves, although I really appreciate how modern game designers have attempted to give them more “generic” labels. The new Dolmenwood, for example.

Nothing is perfect though, and sometimes figuring out which save is appropriate can be a bit confusing to me, regardless of edition. Even in 5e (should this possession effect use a Wisdom save, as usual, or a Charisma save?).

Agreed re the last. I solved a lot of it by arranging the save matrices in a specific order on my chart, then when a save comes up that might fall into more than one area I start from the left and the first appropriate matrix I hit, that's the one gets used. Thus, if someone gets hit by a magic effect that delivers a lethal poison is the save against magic, poison, or death*? On my matrix death is on the furthest left, so it's what gets used in this case.

* - in 1e paralysis-poison-death were all the same save matrix; not all that long ago (during lockdown, I think) I broke them out into three separate matrices due to a bunch of what I think are good reasons, and so far I'm happy with the results.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Weapon proficiencies (as opposed to specialization) were a thing in 1e. A fighter started with four and gained another one at 4th, 7th, 10th, etc. level. A cleric started with three and gained one at 5th, 10th, 15th etc. level. Using a non-proficient weapon carried a to-hit penalty that varied by class.

You're also, I think, vastly discounting the value of that improved math, even if the player didn't necessarily see all of it.

There's IMO a good argument to be made that barbarian as a class has never worked in any edition and should probably be scrapped outright.

The character still changes, but those changes are much more driven by magic items and effects (and are thus far less predictable, which is IMO a feature not a bug) rather than by intrinsic class features.

If it's additive multiclassing like the WotC editions use, yes. But 2e-style multiclassing doesn't hit this problem.

Then the wrong lesson was learned. Pity.

Everything has an upside. I like 5e but when I play it I care a lot less about treasure and magic items.

No experience for treasure means we are not pushing to gain every last coin. Hell I will leave treasure for others at times because I don’t care.

And there are so many abilities and so few “dead levels” as people call them…I don’t much are about a magic item when I am learning a new ability every session.

But what magic items did in the old days was interesting. Samey samey characters quickly became quite different with the acquisition of items. Like boardgames where you turn over tiles and see what you found, there was a fun in seeing what the hoard held and how it would effect the very next battle.

I like 5e! But I do miss those things about AD&D…