D&D General 5.5E--new edition or not?

[Corinnguard]

Oh no. No.
I hate being a player. It's so boring.

It wouldn't be because of the hours long Charisma (Performance) check, is it?

 

[Morrus]

Touche. Fair point. I admit, i didn't read it carefully enough and on first few pages, most discussions were about is it new edition or not. But, to be on point per OP, when talking to people who do sell D&D products (all 3 shops in town), it's all the same since they don't hold any 3rd party products and adventure books, while in stock, don't sell that great. People buy both 5 and 5.5 products, like new core but also pick up Tasha or Xanathar. That 5/5.5 distinction is more pronounced in bigger markets where you have 3pp on shelves and people buy premade adventures much more.

Sorry, I didn’t read your post.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While I know that the topic of this thread is for 5e and 5.5e, I am curious about whether or not any of the 5e-adjacent RPGs such as Level Up or Tales of the Valiant can pass your litmus test. Especially since some of them came before 5.5e by a couple of years.

What I have heard of LU indicates it has changed too much to be completely "the same", but not so much as to be completely "different". Which is usually the case for 3PP that has no need to color inside the lines. I have had more than one person on here tell me that they feel "5e" (which they see as an ecosystem not actually under WotC's control) is much better specifically because Level Up is willing to make some changes I would call fundamental, but not totally table-flipping.

I would call it a separate, different "half edition", a parallel evolution rather than a serial evolution like what we saw with 3.0->3.5->PF1.

I know little about TotV, so I couldn't speak to its relative status.

It's worth noting, every single thing in this hobby is on a spectrum, not a binary. "Edition" matters immensely for some (like me), but "game" also matters a ton. Shadowrun is a deeply different experience compared to D&D. And yet SR is more like any flavor of D&D than it is like, say, Prince Valiant, despite how very different SR is from D&D.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That is not really what I was talking about, more about places where the rules are genuinely inconsistent or ambiguous.

Really! are these people adults? This would be where I would pull out the "I am not picking on anyone, I am trying my best to make this fun for everyone. Would you prefer to DM?"

In the specific instances, I would not make anyone roll differently for cold exhaustion due to background and I would warn beforehand (above table if necessary) that they need to prepare for the cold and that pushing too hard could lead to exhaustion)
the hit point guy I would tell to eff off, they are my monsters and have to hit points I say so.
The stunting player, I would be inclined to say I will allow this this time only or set and athletics or acrobatics DC and ask if they still want to risk it. I probably would not allow extra damage, perhaps advantage.

And it is cool that you have put a lot of thought into the campaign and its planning.

Well, if I may speak on behalf of the players here, not because I am one but because I was very surprised to hear your extra-sharp criticism of what sounded like reasonable complaints to me...

Re: Cold exhaustion saves, that absolutely reads like being singled out for punishment. It directly turns what I see as a pure cosmetic/narrative/stylistic choice (what region my char grew up in) into a serious and meaningful mechanical weakness, one that could debilitate or even kill my character (remember, with six Exhaustion, you instantly die, no restrictions.) Now, maybe this was the very very first time any such thing had come up, so the "singled out" part is merely a perception issue; I'll grant that purely for benefit of doubt. But the pretty serious nature of the imposed penalty, the equivalent of a -5 for goodness' sake, is quite severe and would definitely feel harsh and punitive given it's literally just "I grew up where heatstroke is a much more common problem than frostbite". So...no. As an outsider, this looks like a GM punishing the odd man out with needless, punitive "realism" that could straight-up kill the errant player.

And to be clear, your alternative approach is perfectly reasonable and even commendable. You're informative, you aren't inflicting a nasty penalty on the basis of flimsy background info, and you're setting clear and actionable expectations. If the players did then get butthurt because their poor characters had to deal with the frostbite they were explicitly told was coming, then those players are either extremely foolish, or extremely immature.

The other tho, no, sorry, I completely agree with the player here. It's not "your monster". It's a monster in the world, and an opponent in the field. Both of those things matter enormously to me. The former means the world is cognizable, that it has internal structural consistency, that it invites actual study and experimenting because you can try things and genuinely learn about the result. Likewise, the opponent on the field is a gameplay entity that I am facing off against. To rewrite it as I am fighting it is mathematically and behaviorally identical to fudging my dice, while lying to my face about doing so, pretending that the game rules actually matter when they don't; I win when you decide I win. It just happens that more often than not you decide to let me win when the rules say so.

Now, if this is done openly, well that's a whole different ballgame. "Hey guys. You've kicked their teeth in. Do you want to wrap the fight now and describe how you cleaned up? Or do you really want to work through all eight remaining dudes?" Most times, people want the faster cleanup, so they can move on to new and interesting things. Occasionally though I have had players who did want to see things through to the bitter end. But when you fudge monster stats, which is identical to fudging dice, you take away my ability to actually learn to play better. I can't actually learn anything when the test is being rewritten as I take it to make the answers right (or wrong, doesn't matter which way the rewrite goes). Now, if the test is outright faulty, there can be contexts for that...but you should still just say something.

As for the third case, I personally do not think it is good to have the story too rigidly planned in advance, and prefer an open, adaptive, but well-supported approach. Less "rigid tour itinerary" and more "taking friends for a walk downtown through places you know will be interesting". But that's neither here nor there. The rules consistency is extremely important as already mentioned. If I can't actually know the rules, I can't make informed decisions. If I can't make informed decisions, then I cannot link the consequences of those decisions to the decisions themselves; the consequences are unmoored. As a result, I cannot examine the consequences to see if I could have chosen better or worse. I simply know a thing I did. And then also, totally separately, I know that after that action of mine, some things happened. Did my choices cause those consequences? I have no idea. Could have! But also just as easily could have been GM manipulation that I'm not allowed to know about or understand. I cannot learn to play better, because I have no idea whether my actions actually make things better or worse. Maybe the GM just does what she thinks is better.

And yes, I really do value this "I can actually learn to play better" thing so highly that, if I were informed even 100 sessions in that the GM regularly rewrites monsters during combat, I would be tempted to quit on the spot. I would almost surely not stay in that game, unless I were given some very major assurances going forward. I strongly dislike being lied to, and whether or not anyone else does, I absolutely do see fudging and secretly rewriting monsters in-combat as lying. (Note that my definition of "fudging" is always in secret. Changing things openly in one way or another is fair game.) In fact, if it were a long-runner like that, I would feel deeply betrayed to learn this. It might damage or even end friendships, and it would potentially even drive me to recommend that others choose not to play with that GM because I would believe they don't value honesty very highly (except from players, natch). That's how serious I am about my opposition to fudging. I really do find it funny how many GMs there are out there who somehow legitimately think that fudging isn't just a necessary evil (which is incorrect, it isn't necessary), but an outright good...and then immediately and consistently tell others to do this thing and actively lie about doing so.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Oh no. No.
I hate being a player. It's so boring.

Dude! I need you to elaborate on this part for me. Not here, though. I think it deserves an entirely different discussion. Please, and thank you.

 

[Retreater]

Dude! I need you to elaborate on this part for me. Not here, though. I think it deserves an entirely different discussion. Please, and thank you.

R

Thread 'GMs - Do you get bored when you're a player?'

Oct 26, 2024

As someone accustomed to being a "Forever GM," I find myself growing bored when I'm a player. Having one character with one action with potentially minimal impact in a combat, waiting until my turn comes around again, possibly fighting a creature immune or highly resistant to my attacks - it's just not as exciting as controlling a squad of bad guys, shaping the story and world, controlling the pace of the game, etc.
Does anybody else feel the same way? Any tips about transitioning from being a GM to a "good player?"

• Retreater
• Replies: 157
• Forum: *Tabletop General

• 
• 

I've discussed it in this thread if you're curious

 

[kayakingpoodle]

I'm not saying you're wrong to feel the way you do, but as a retailer who's been around for SEVEN times that D&D has revised their core books...

If the 2024 launch was "botched", I'd really LOVE to see what it it would be like if dine "right".

(I mean, I'm elbowing you in the ribs, here, but I do think that some things could be done better. Botched is just a bit strong.)

For me it was them riding the fence, and botched is the best description, it would be awesome to see them not poop the bed on a roll out! 5.5 marked the end of me buying anything wizbro, I still play what I have, but they can keep all things 5.5.

I appreciate the ribbing and feel it is deserved

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Holy Moley.. Great wall of text.

Well, if I may speak on behalf of the players here, not because I am one but because I was very surprised to hear your extra-sharp criticism of what sounded like reasonable complaints to me...

First off, @Retreater and I have had numerous exchanges on his issues with DM'ing and burnout over quite a long time and it has struck me that often he is trying too hard to accommodate everything his players desire. He could do with say no, now and again. It is not my general philosophy. I am very much a fan of "Yes and..." or "Yes but..." DM approaches.

Re: Cold exhaustion saves, that absolutely reads like being singled out for punishment. It directly turns what I see as a pure cosmetic/narrative/stylistic choice (what region my char grew up in) into a serious and meaningful mechanical weakness, one that could debilitate or even kill my character (remember, with six Exhaustion, you instantly die, no restrictions.) Now, maybe this was the very very first time any such thing had come up, so the "singled out" part is merely a perception issue; I'll grant that purely for benefit of doubt. But the pretty serious nature of the imposed penalty, the equivalent of a -5 for goodness' sake, is quite severe and would definitely feel harsh and punitive given it's literally just "I grew up where heatstroke is a much more common problem than frostbite". So...no. As an outsider, this looks like a GM punishing the odd man out with needless, punitive "realism" that could straight-up kill the errant player.

If you actually read my post

.....

In the specific instances, I would not make anyone roll differently for cold exhaustion due to background and I would warn beforehand (above table if necessary) that they need to prepare for the cold and that pushing too hard could lead to exhaustion)

And to be clear, your alternative approach is perfectly reasonable and even commendable. You're informative, you aren't inflicting a nasty penalty on the basis of flimsy background info, and you're setting clear and actionable expectations. If the players did then get butthurt because their poor characters had to deal with the frostbite they were explicitly told was coming, then those players are either extremely foolish, or extremely immature.

The other tho, no, sorry, I completely agree with the player here. It's not "your monster". It's a monster in the world, and an opponent in the field. Both of those things matter enormously to me. The former means the world is cognizable, that it has internal structural consistency, that it invites actual study and experimenting because you can try things and genuinely learn about the result. Likewise, the opponent on the field is a gameplay entity that I am facing off against. To rewrite it as I am fighting it is mathematically and behaviorally identical to fudging my dice, while lying to my face about doing so, pretending that the game rules actually matter when they don't; I win when you decide I win. It just happens that more often than not you decide to let me win when the rules say so.

Who makes up the statblock? What if I homebrew the monster? My presumption here is that the player was looking at the monster manual and saying "No orcs have 45 hp" . I reserve the right to make up any specific npc.

Now, if this is done openly, well that's a whole different ballgame. "Hey guys. You've kicked their teeth in. Do you want to wrap the fight now and describe how you cleaned up? Or do you really want to work through all eight remaining dudes?" Most times, people want the faster cleanup, so they can move on to new and interesting things. Occasionally though I have had players who did want to see things through to the bitter end. But when you fudge monster stats, which is identical to fudging dice, you take away my ability to actually learn to play better. I can't actually learn anything when the test is being rewritten as I take it to make the answers right (or wrong, doesn't matter which way the rewrite goes). Now, if the test is outright faulty, there can be contexts for that...but you should still just say something.

I have no argument with this and am not convinced that anyone was talking about this.

As for the third case, I personally do not think it is good to have the story too rigidly planned in advance, and prefer an open, adaptive, but well-supported approach. Less "rigid tour itinerary" and more "taking friends for a walk downtown through places you know will be interesting". But that's neither here nor there. The rules consistency is extremely important as already mentioned. If I can't actually know the rules, I can't make informed decisions. If I can't make informed decisions, then I cannot link the consequences of those decisions to the decisions themselves; the consequences are unmoored. As a result, I cannot examine the consequences to see if I could have chosen better or worse. I simply know a thing I did. And then also, totally separately, I know that after that action of mine, some things happened. Did my choices cause those consequences? I have no idea. Could have! But also just as easily could have been GM manipulation that I'm not allowed to know about or understand. I cannot learn to play better, because I have no idea whether my actions actually make things better or worse. Maybe the GM just does what she thinks is better.

I made no comment of substance about the story, preplanned or otherwise, other than

.....

And it is cool that you have put a lot of thought into the campaign and its planning.

And yes, I really do value this "I can actually learn to play better" thing so highly that, if I were informed even 100 sessions in that the GM regularly rewrites monsters during combat, I would be tempted to quit on the spot. I would almost surely not stay in that game, unless I were given some very major assurances going forward. I strongly dislike being lied to, and whether or not anyone else does, I absolutely do see fudging and secretly rewriting monsters in-combat as lying. (Note that my definition of "fudging" is always in secret. Changing things openly in one way or another is fair game.) In fact, if it were a long-runner like that, I would feel deeply betrayed to learn this. It might damage or even end friendships, and it would potentially even drive me to recommend that others choose not to play with that GM because I would believe they don't value honesty very highly (except from players, natch). That's how serious I am about my opposition to fudging. I really do find it funny how many GMs there are out there who somehow legitimately think that fudging isn't just a necessary evil (which is incorrect, it isn't necessary), but an outright good...and then immediately and consistently tell others to do this thing and actively lie about doing so.

Yes, I know, you have told us often enough and I do not bloody well care. I was not talking about that. I am not discussing it further with you either.

 

[GrimCo]

Sorry, I didn’t read your post.

From browsing disscusson on this thread, half the posters here also didn't read OP. So it's all good.

 

[GMMichael]

I read the OP, but I don't sell 5e products.

I also declared that it's a new edition, probably even before WotC denied it...

...and then later admitted to it.

Even if it weren't a new edition, I wouldn't expect old products to sell as well. "We didn't change a single rule!" would still sell a 2024 PHB better than a 2014 PHB.