D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

Xenolith234 said:

“Punish” = Restrict. It’s totally reasonable that each setting comes with its own set of restrictions to fit the fantasy. That just happens to be way more difficult with 2024 (and 5e as a whole, but moreso 2024 now due to player empowerment).

Each PC’s abilities are designed to punish DMs. Every. One. They contort D&D into unnatural shapes because D&D settings aren’t designed for that level of power. So each change kept forcing more and more power into PCs, the rules, and the game itself until it was an ungodly mess of buried subclasses and feats in multiple books that only served to continue the arms race on the player side, while enabling players to chafe against the slightest restriction by a setting or DM. Quote: “your DM will hate this”

Click to expand...

Agreed percent. That venom lace. Post you quoted and satirized is a perfect demonstration of why the baseline core needs to be lower power/lower fantasy/darker with the option provided to gms who choose to raise the power shift to higher fantasy or make it brighter to do so by adding to the baseline.

That "your dm will hate this " Crawford quotes just underscores the problem by spotlighting the level of top down hostility towards DM's that 5e has spent over. Decade cultivating for any gm who dares attempt the "just home brew it" design strategy in any direction other than MOAR POWAH

Xenolith234 said:

“Punish” = Restrict. It’s totally reasonable that each setting comes with its own set of restrictions to fit the fantasy. That just happens to be way more difficult with 2024 (and 5e as a whole, but moreso 2024 now due to player empowerment).

Click to expand...

Punish also meant punish. As in, cripple PCs abilities and limit their options. Ravenloft weakened turn undead and most spells to make sure you can't get an advantage against the main antagonists. Planescape would restrict cleric spellcasting based on how many planes you were removed from your deity. Dragonlance forced every caster into the Jedi Order Order of High Sorcery and crippled you if you failed the robe test. Spelljamming cost arcane spell slots, guaranteeing your mage has to rest for hours very time you took off. And don't get me started on Dark Sun. Even good old Faerun required you to worship a god or you could never be resurrected. All rules designed to force players to play the correct way or suffer the consequences.

I found it absolutely liberating to play some of those settings without these punitive restrictions and I have found almost nothing is lost by removing them.

Xenolith234 said:

“Punish” = Restrict. It’s totally reasonable that each setting comes with its own set of restrictions to fit the fantasy. That just happens to be way more difficult with 2024 (and 5e as a whole, but moreso 2024 now due to player empowerment).

Each PC’s abilities are designed to punish DMs. Every. One. They contort D&D into unnatural shapes because D&D settings aren’t designed for that level of power. So each change kept forcing more and more power into PCs, the rules, and the game itself until it was an ungodly mess of buried subclasses and feats in multiple books that only served to continue the arms race on the player side, while enabling players to chafe against the slightest restriction by a setting or DM. Quote: “your DM will hate this”

Click to expand...

You can’t really punish a DM by giving players options in D&D because every toy they get the DM gets as well.

I think there are a lot of issues with having monsters use the same rules as pc’s but this is certainly one of the big upsides. Want a level 5 barbarian wolf? No problem.

It’s always asymmetric for the DM because while there are DM only toys, there aren’t any player only toys.

But at the end of the day It’s not a contest between the players and DM’s right? We are just playing a game together to have fun. A game without winners or losers (among at the real life people at the table).

No editions’ rule set has ever enabled all types of gameplay. Luckily there are so many great ttrpgs out that there is probably one that does what your table needs.

tetrasodium said:

Agreed percent. That venom lace. Post you quoted and satirized is a perfect demonstration of why the baseline core needs to be lower power/lower fantasy/darker with the option provided to gms who choose to raise the power shift to higher fantasy or make it brighter to do so by adding to the baseline.

That "your dm will hate this " Crawford quotes just underscores the problem by spotlighting the level of top down hostility towards DM's that 5e has spent over. Decade cultivating for any gm who dares attempt the "just home brew it" design strategy in any direction other than MOAR POWAH

Click to expand...

Or maybe the quotes are just meant in fun? I just can’t see D&D designers having actual antagonism towards DM’s.

They know DMs are required and the game’s don’t run or exist without them. Everything about D&D has always been a touch tongue in cheek. They know it’s a game and embrace it.

If they are waging a war against DM’s how/why is the game more popular than ever?

If you really believe this and feel this way just pick one of the many games that play differently.

HatWearingFool said:

You can’t really punish a DM by giving players options in D&D because

Click to expand...

S
i
l
v
e
r
y


B
a
r
b
s
!

Oh look yourolled well but failed that save thanks to reliable talent legendary resistance or whatever verbotten bit of technically dm available design that fits

Moving on from that myth... Nearly 100% of d&d tables have one gm and multiple players. Because of that it places the bar extremely low for where the gm crosses a line from "tough but fair" to adversarial in ways that feel toxic and unfair
Should the gm do as you claim they could.

. I dunno if the rest of your post had anything that deserves to be addressed. I took your advice.

HatWearingFool said:

Or maybe the quotes are just meant in fun? I just can’t see D&D designers having actual antagonism towards DM’s.

They know DMs are required and the game’s don’t run or exist without them. Everything about D&D has always been a touch tongue in cheek. They know it’s a game and embrace it.

If they are waging a war against DM’s how/why is the game more popular than ever?

If you really believe this and feel this way just pick one of the many games that play differently.

Click to expand...

Stanford prison experiment the milgram experiment and Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity show why that kind of "fun" races down a path of terrible results where the darker sides of humanity are set free to act without shame. You could say that a lot of the old school evil monster killer GM tropes are the direct result from some of tsr era folks saying things that were also "meant in fun", but multiple editions later we still have the current edition bending over backwards to shield players from all GMs as if those monster killer GMs are the norm by far.

tetrasodium said:

S
i
l
v
e
r
y


B
a
r
b
s
!

Oh look yourolled well but failed that save thanks to reliable talent legendary resistance or whatever verbotten bit of technically dm available design that fits

Moving on from that myth... Nearly 100% of d&d tables have one gm and multiple players. Because of that it places the bar extremely low for where the gm crosses a line from "tough but fair" to adversarial in ways that feel toxic and unfair
Should the gm do as you claim they could.

. I dunno if the rest of your post had anything that deserves to be addressed. I took your advice.

Stanford prison experiment the milgram experiment and Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity show why that kind of "fun" races down a path of terrible results where the darker sides of humanity are set free to act without shame. You could say that a lot of the old school evil monster killer GM tropes are the direct result from some of tsr era folks saying things that were also "meant in fun", but multiple editions later we still have the current edition bending over backwards to shield players from all GMs as if those monster killer GMs are the norm by far.

Click to expand...

Personally I don’t find silvery barbs problematic.

I see it in the same light as heroic inspiration and legendary resistances. It’s bandaid for something I’d like to see fully addressed in the system itself.

tetrasodium said:

Agreed percent. That venom lace. Post you quoted and satirized is a perfect demonstration of why the baseline core needs to be lower power/lower fantasy/darker with the option provided to gms who choose to raise the power shift to higher fantasy or make it brighter to do so by adding to the baseline.

That "your dm will hate this " Crawford quotes just underscores the problem by spotlighting the level of top down hostility towards DM's that 5e has spent over. Decade cultivating for any gm who dares attempt the "just home brew it" design strategy in any direction other than MOAR POWAH

Click to expand...

Maybe they should just make settings where higher powered PCs make more sense then

Remathilis said:

No its not. D&D is a blend of sword & sorcery, high fantasy, mythology and smear of horror. Its not generic fantasy. It quite frankly sucks out for anything that isn't its particular blend of fantasy.

Click to expand...

Which is why there's no real point to playing D&D unless you're looking for that specific blend as interpreted through WotC's lens. (Or if you've sold your soul to WotC and are now committed to furthering the dominion of the One Brand to Rule Them All, I suppose ... )

tetrasodium said:

Why give GM's a bunch of specialized monsters that can work together as a team to challenge a party of optimized specialist pcs in ways that play out with a tactically unique & interesting dance each time when the mm can slop a laundry basket of generalist master of none tools that grind down PC's under an avalanche of bland encounters that blame the gm for not making them more interesting individually session after session?

Click to expand...

Tradition?