D&D General D&D Editions: Anybody Else Feel Like They Don't Fit In?

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, that's pretty much a giant sign saying "I'd like to gatekeep my game so its only for people like me".

Which I pretty much said previously. Any design predicated on "only my tastes are allowed, and anything actually against my tastes is expressly forbidden as official rules" isn't participating in good faith. A game as big and wide-ranging as D&D has to have things in it some fans won't use and perhaps won't even like.

Challenging, low-power, difficult content requires particular support to make it work well. That means it should get that support. But it also means, particularly because it is an uncommon preference, it probably shouldn't be the default. I recognize that it would be a lot easier to persuade one's group to play such a campaign if the rules were hard-coded to work that way and would only be easier if the DM elects so. But that is quite literally saying, "I want 90% of DMs to have to rewrite the rules to work for them, just so the 10% who play the way I do never have to bother justifying their choices." That's simply not an argument that will ever work on me.

Yeah, its not like optional rules aren't a thing in a lot of games. But the fact they're "optional" seems to sometimes be, well, offensive.

It depends on the execution, in my experience. Hence why I've reiterated how important it is for these opt-in rules I've mentioned to be both fairly treated and not deprecated. They can't be demoted to an obscure third-run supplement that only arrives five years after launch. They can't be treated like an icky side thing hidden away in an obscure part of the DMG. They can't be presented as in any way disfavored or problematic unless the "default" way is also critiqued similarly. (As an example, I would prefer a DMG that explains the benefits, limitations, and pitfalls of the default rules, and then explains the benefits, limitations, and pitfalls of each presented opt-in or alternative element--that way, it's not implying that the default rules are issue-free, but still giving useful guidance for situations DMs are likely to encounter with any actively-supported approach.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

It depends on the execution, in my experience. Hence why I've reiterated how important it is for these opt-in rules I've mentioned to be both fairly treated and not deprecated. They can't be demoted to an obscure third-run supplement that only arrives five years after launch. They can't be treated like an icky side thing hidden away in an obscure part of the DMG. They can't be presented as in any way disfavored or problematic unless the "default" way is also critiqued similarly. (As an example, I would prefer a DMG that explains the benefits, limitations, and pitfalls of the default rules, and then explains the benefits, limitations, and pitfalls of each presented opt-in or alternative element--that way, it's not implying that the default rules are issue-free, but still giving useful guidance for situations DMs are likely to encounter with any actively-supported approach.)

Well, I think you're an optimist that you think that can be done there, not the least because it doesn't end there if you start; other things have to be supported and you can't give all of it equal footing.

I mean you can have a situation where the benefits of the optional rules are explained, but they're still going to be optional rules, and just that fact is going to depreciate them in some people's eyes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, I think you're an optimist that you think that can be done there, not the least because it doesn't end there if you start; other things have to be supported and you can't give all of it equal footing.

I mean you can have a situation where the benefits of the optional rules are explained, but they're still going to be optional rules, and just that fact is going to depreciate them in some people's eyes.

Obviously, nothing is perfect and books are finite. We can only do so much.

But we have been doing much, much, much less than what we could be doing. Which is, more or less, my point.

5e had a wonderful start, and then piddled away two FULL YEARS of public playtesting JUST trying to figure out what shape Fighter should have and whether you should be rolling a bazillion dice or just using flat bonuses. (For serious, the 5e playtest was mismanaged horribly. It's a miracle a full game arrived in time for the intended release date.)

Modularity, as it was originally sold to us, is perfectly achievable. Novice-level rules and incremental advance rules are a tiny step, but would accomplish so, so much all by themselves. I'm dead certain there's more that could be done--more that can be learned from both old-school and "new"-school editions, more that we could squeeze in. Especially if we do as I would prefer, and remove magic items (amongst other things) to a separate book, so that we have more space to play in both the DMG and the PHB.

You are right that I am being optimistic. You are correct that it's likely it won't work out perfectly and that some things will end up on the cutting room floor or having to be reserved for later supplements. Nothing is perfect. No plan survives contact with the enemy, etc., etc., etc.

No pessimistic message is going to stop me from advocating for better than we have now. Particularly because of how terribly, terribly little we've actually done to try to accomplish any of this.

"It won't be perfect! You'll fail!" Okay. We can fail better than we're failing now.

 

[dave2008]

Your "sometimes" absolutely is not "always", and my "perfectly possible" is a lot more achievable than you give credit for.

I believe it is achievable. I just don't believe it is what people want. I don't have any problem with your vision. It is basically what I would want (+ detailed immortal rules); however, my experience is that what I want doesn't sell, i.e. is not what most people want.

So I don't disagree with your idea, I just don't think it would be as popular as you seem to think. I think it is catering to what you (and likely I) want, but that doesn't mean it is what others want. I think your idea also falls into: "All of the rules must be made for me and my preferences," you just don't see it that way.

PS - I still disagree that 5e doesn't have optional novice levels. There is no requirement in 5e (or any edition of D&D that I can think of) to start at level 1. Additionally, WotC repeatedly called them novice levels. Just because they don't fit your definition of novice levels, doesn't make them not novice levels.

 

[dave2008]

Obviously, nothing is perfect and books are finite. We can only do so much.

But we have been doing much, much, much less than what we could be doing. Which is, more or less, my point.

5e had a wonderful start, and then piddled away two FULL YEARS of public playtesting JUST trying to figure out what shape Fighter should have and whether you should be rolling a bazillion dice or just using flat bonuses. (For serious, the 5e playtest was mismanaged horribly. It's a miracle a full game arrived in time for the intended release date.)

Modularity, as it was originally sold to us, is perfectly achievable. Novice-level rules and incremental advance rules are a tiny step, but would accomplish so, so much all by themselves. I'm dead certain there's more that could be done--more that can be learned from both old-school and "new"-school editions, more that we could squeeze in. Especially if we do as I would prefer, and remove magic items (amongst other things) to a separate book, so that we have more space to play in both the DMG and the PHB.

You are right that I am being optimistic. You are correct that it's likely it won't work out perfectly and that some things will end up on the cutting room floor or having to be reserved for later supplements. Nothing is perfect. No plan survives contact with the enemy, etc., etc., etc.

No pessimistic message is going to stop me from advocating for better than we have now. Particularly because of how terribly, terribly little we've actually done to try to accomplish any of this.

"It won't be perfect! You'll fail!" Okay. We can fail better than we're failing now.

I agree with pretty much everything here. I am just not as optimistic as you. I mean we have a 150+ page thread on: The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I believe it is achievable. I just don't believe it is what people want. I don't have any problem with your vision. It is basically what I would want (+ detailed immortal rules); however, my experience is that what I want doesn't sell, i.e. is not what most people want.

So I don't disagree with your idea, I just don't think it would be as popular as you seem to think. I think it is catering to what you (and likely I) want, but that doesn't mean it is what others want. I think your idea also falls into: "All of the rules must be made for me and my preferences," you just don't see it that way.

PS - I still disagree that 5e doesn't have optional novice levels. There is no requirement in 5e (or any edition of D&D that I can think of) to start at level 1. Additionally, WotC repeatedly called them novice levels. Just because they don't fit your definition of novice levels, doesn't make them not novice levels.

I think we're all better off just playing different games if preferences are irreconcilable.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I think we're all better off just playing different games if preferences are irreconcilable.

Yes, and...

1. not get offended when someone suggests one try a different game
2. not get offended that b/c someone else prefers a different game that it is somehow an affront against one's preferred game
3. realize that one might have a better experience talking about one's preferred game in a thread or forum intended for discussion about that game

 

[Thomas Shey]

"It won't be perfect! You'll fail!" Okay. We can fail better than we're failing now.

I still think that requires a different target than your post seemed to aim at, but I get your point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, and...

1. not get offended when someone suggests one try a different game
2. not get offended that b/c someone else prefers a different game that it is somehow an affront against one's preferred game
3. realize that one might have a better experience talking about one's preferred game in a thread or forum intended for discussion about that game

I agree with all these things, but number 3 is difficult when one is discussing D&D-like games, as there is an enormous amount of cross-over in conversation topics. How specific should the thread be?

 

[Thomas Shey]

PS - I still disagree that 5e doesn't have optional novice levels. There is no requirement in 5e (or any edition of D&D that I can think of) to start at level 1. Additionally, WotC repeatedly called them novice levels. Just because they don't fit your definition of novice levels, doesn't make them not novice levels.

I would maintain that's been the way the presentation seemed to strongly aim in any of the ones I'm familiar with, however.