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

[Faolyn]

I have yet to mention 5e specifically, in either version, so I'm not sure where this comes from.

Your point was - or seemed to be - around GMs selling players on systems they didn't want to play; to which my response was - and remains - that you can only "sell" so much before you have to admit they ain't gonna buy because what you're trying to sell is an inferior product. That inferiority can be via simple customer perception (this one looks cheaply made) or factually through specs and reviews (this one has half the battery life compared to most of the others).

Same applies to GMs pitching a game or campaign. Sooner or later if players keep rejecting the pitch the GM has to admit that what's being pitched is somehow inferior.

Or sometimes they don't buy because they're used to one thing and don't want to try anything different. A lot of people only ever want to play 5e and won't try another game, no matter how good it actually is.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ah, yes, the "DM has infinite dragons" argument. As a near-forever DM frankly I don't like to have to use harder creatures to challenge PCs who are OP for the level of creatures the game design means they should be facing.

In my current game, now that the Rune Knight has retired, another player commented "Good, now you can stop ramping up the encounters to challenge him and the rest of us can take a breath!" (near verbatim). His PC is a Rogue (Arcane Trickster) / Wizard (War Magic) with about half the HP the Rune Knight had, and I often had encounters where one or more of the other PCs would be down, or well under half-HP, and the Rune Knight would be still ready for the next bout.

Also, I want to remove features because there are too many for players to keep track of consistantly, to the point it becomes "why bother adding more when they don't even use what they have?"

That's just more work and leads towards rocket tag if you go to far with it.

Thank you 3E. I want easier to run these days not harder.

 

[Zardnaar]

But you aren’t arguing for compromise. You’re arguing that the players accept with what the GM proposes regardless of what they want.

And, let’s be real here. Even if the GM has to « grit their teeth » and accept a game in which the players are more powerful then they would like, the GM gets their way in 90% of the game decisions. If the GM proposes a swashbuckling epic, the campaign is likely going to be a swashbuckling epic.

Ultimately GM doesn't have to compromise.

I'm running 5.5 or 2E no it's or buts. Up to you if you want to play or not.

You often can't account for 5-6 different players tastes. You find 5-6 players with similar enough tastes to yours it will work.

3/6 2E players are 5E players. Hey guys I'm running 2E want to play? Started C&C with 2 now have 6.

 

[Lanefan]

So when you respond to @EzekielRaiden :


What are you referring to?

Either or both of a) any mismatched system the GM is trying to pitch to potential players and-or b) a flat-out poor system.

 

[Lanefan]

Or sometimes they don't buy because they're used to one thing and don't want to try anything different. A lot of people only ever want to play 5e and won't try another game, no matter how good it actually is.

It'll be interesting to see how well the bolded holds true if-when WotC releases 6e.

 

[Zardnaar]

It'll be interesting to see how well the bolded holds true if-when WotC releases 6e.

People will get sick of it eventually.

WotC can't force the change.

 

[AnotherGuy]

What are you referring to?

Apparently some farmers in @Lanefan's area have a fetish for make-up on livestock.
It's rude to kink shame...so I've heard.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok, do you think you should continuing playing a game like that, where you very obviously wouldn't be happy? It sounds to be me like another game would suit you better, and fortunately there are a lot of options out there. I've never agreed with your claim that WotC needs fix their game to suit everyone because it's near impossible to play anything else. It is challenging to be sure, and I dearly wish WotC was a smaller gorilla, but you can still play other games. Heck, @Lanefan doesn't play WotC's game, and neither do I. Both of us, however, and many others, have to deal with the effect WotC's dominance has on the hobby.

To be clear: Are you saying, in long form, "Stop playing D&D. It isn't for you. It's for me."?

And, for the record: I tried. For a whole year. Discord. Roll20. GitP. Here. Myth-Weavers. Never found a single 4e game that lasted more than one adventure (and even those were incredibly rare). Applied to dozens of 5e games--got into maybe a handful of them, all of which died within six sessions (usually much less), in part because of frequent TPKs or near-TPKs.

"Go play other things" is a great argument when someone hasn't tried. I have.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was in retail my whole career and believe me, you can only put so much lipstick on a pig before you have to just admit it's a pig and stop promoting it.

Okay.

If you can't sell your players a pig when it's not forced upon them by the system, why should you expect to be able to?

I legitimately do not understand this line of argument. "I can't beat my players into submission if they know they have choices, so we need to make sure they're never allowed to have choices, so they'll meekly submit to whatever I want." Like, for real? You're angry that your players have preferences and actually advocate for themselves when they know there are options????

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I was in retail my whole career and believe me, you can only put so much lipstick on a pig before you have to just admit it's a pig and stop promoting it.

If life gives you pigs make bacon butties.