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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I believe descending order of saves is how its supposed to work anyway.

 

[AlViking]

No. It’s far easier for a DM to make a softball game more difficult than the reverse.

Throw an adult red dragon against a 1st level party in any edition of the game. See how well the party does.

I could use some new dice, so I have a great idea. Next session I'll mention how the current iteration of D&D is on easy mode then keep all the dice they throw at me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. It’s far easier for a DM to make a softball game more difficult than the reverse.

Throw an adult red dragon against a 1st level party in any edition of the game. See how well the party does.

You appear to be ignoring player buy in as a factor. It is much harder to convince many players to take an easier, more powerful on the PC-side game and make it harder than the reverse, because IMO the former almost always takes power away from the PCs in some way, and players IME hate having anything taken away from them that the rules say they get to have. Its the same reason I prefer optional rules be a thing explicitly, because when something is labeled optional it means you don't always get to have it, but more many players IME, not having that label means you do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I could use some new dice, so I have a great idea. Next session I'll mention how the current iteration of D&D is on easy mode then keep all the dice they throw at me.

Are they throwing dice at you because they disagree?

 

[ezo]

and players IME hate having anything taken away from them that the rules say they get to have.

Like multiclassing in 2024 being baked-in instead of explicitly optional like in 2014. No reason for this to happen.

Are they throwing dice at you because they disagree?

I thought maybe it was so he could practice his missile deflection.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thank god this is neither incorrect nor harmful.

I mean it's actually both.

It's incorrect for the reasons I gave. "Compromise" where everyone is actively unhappy about it directly leads to horrible things. It isn't "compromise" in anything but technicality; to assert that that is ONLY and ALWAYS what compromise is is flatly wrong.

It's harmful because it teaches people: don't compromise. You'll never be happy with a compromise, you'll always hate it, so...don't! Never compromise! Only accept whatever would make you actually happy.

Which leads to everyone being even more aggressive and treating negotiation and understanding as pointless drivel that just makes everything worse for everyone.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You appear to be ignoring player buy in as a factor. It is much harder to convince many players to take an easier, more powerful on the PC-side game and make it harder than the reverse, because IMO the former almost always takes power away from the PCs in some way, and players IME hate having anything taken away from them that the rules say they get to have. Its the same reason I prefer optional rules be a thing explicitly, because when something is labeled optional it means you don't always get to have it, but more many players IME, not having that label means you do.

Of course.

If you can't get your players bought in, how is that the fault of the system in any way?

Do not blame the rules for your players being uninterested in playing the kind of game you're offering to run.

It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools....for the fact that customers don't want what he's selling.

 

[AlViking]

Are they throwing dice at you because they disagree?

Most fights I run have at least 1 character at 0 at some point, the last session I ran we had to cut off in middle of the session because of time constraints with 2 characters on the verge of being turned to stone and everyone else split up between enemies. Should be interesting to see what happens next. The fight was under the "medium" XP budget using the 2024 rules but I threw in some complications of a rescue and an unexpected attack from a gorgon. Fun times.

I regularly have to take it a little easy in order to not have a TPK because it wouldn't be fun for the players. Different groups can handle more or less but I've never had an issue running difficult combats.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course.

If you can't get your players bought in, how is that the fault of the system in any way?

Do not blame the rules for your players being uninterested in playing the kind of game you're offering to run.

It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools....for the fact that customers don't want what he's selling.

It's a lot easier to convince someone to buy what you're selling if you start small and give ground than if you start big and take it away. I'll die on that hill.

Way to blame the GM, as well, for doing their best with the tools they are heavily influenced to use by the social pressure of a megacorp's gravity.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's a lot easier to convince someone to buy what you're selling if you start small and give ground than if you start big and take it away. I'll die on that hill.

Way to blame the GM, as well, for doing their best with the tools they are heavily influenced to use by the social pressure of a megacorp's gravity.

So, just to be clear here.

It's the megacorporation's fault that the GM isn't able to persuade their players to consider a campaign they're offering. The GM has absolutely zero responsibility for getting their players on board for a campaign--that responsibility falls exclusively at the megacorporation's feet.

I just want to be absolutely clear that that's the position I'm supposed to accept here.

(Yes, I am 99.9% sure you're going to say no and modify this position. I am intentionally asking this because I expect you to explain further here--since what you said thus far does not allow for any other position.)