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

[Clint_L]

We are definitely more in tune with the complexities of the hobby than the average player.
I can safely say that of all my players, I don't think any of them will have heard of any of the games besides 2014 5E. That includes 5.5. They didn't even know it was being released.

I can safely say that of all my players, only a handful knew there were different versions of D&D, and even though I started including 5.5 material as soon as it was released, only a couple noticed, and not one of them cared.

 

[Clint_L]

Rules applied inconsistently or "rule of cool."
I have one player that gets legit angry when he interprets that I'm "out to get him." Like, if he made a character from a warm climate who was crossing a tundra and I had him roll a save with disadvantage to not get exhaustion from the cold. "No one else is getting disadvantage!"

Yeah, I agree with them. You’re making up a rule to punish them for an RP choice. Plenty of people from warm climates have moved to northern regions and been just fine (trust me, I live in Canada) so your rule isn’t even based on anything.

Then I have another player who gets upset if I shave off hit points or make monsters easier. "You're denying us the challenge! We want to beat this fairly."

I agree with them, too.

Another one finds it noble for me to have the campaign scripted out in advance. "It's really cool you put so much thought into this."

Not my preference but glad it’s working for at least two of you.

And she doesn't like what is perceived as inconsistency in the rules. ("Two sessions ago I was able to back flip over the enemy and do extra damage. I want to keep doing that.")

So she’s perceiving…the truth? House rules are fine, but once you establish them you should stick with them or at least let everyone know in advance when you change them.

 

[Retreater]

Yeah, I agree with them. You’re making up a rule to punish them for an RP choice. Plenty of people from warm climates have moved to northern regions and been just fine (trust me, I live in Canada) so your rule isn’t even based on anything.

For an initial, first check the first time the guy experiences cold weather in his life with zero prep for it, I think it's a fine ruling to make.
"RP decisions" are still decisions and there should be consequences if anything matters in the entire game.

Not my preference but glad it’s working for at least two of you

You misinterpreted my quote. I have a player who wants me to script out everything and is upset when I "just make it up."

So she’s perceiving…the truth? House rules are fine, but once you establish them you should stick with them or at least let everyone know in advance when you change them.

Giving a small one-time bonus for a cool idea that is endlessly spammed for power gaming reasons is not a house rule. It's b.s. and disincentives trying new cool things in the future.

 

[bsss]

Giving a small one-time bonus for a cool idea that is endlessly spammed for power gaming reasons is not a house rule. It's b.s. and disincentives trying new cool things in the future.

In my opinion, the game needs consistency, as it's the only way players can make informed decisions. If you just flat-out say "no, you can't do that flip you did last time" or "you can do the flip, but that bonus was special and you won't get it again" because the effect is broken, that feels arbitrary and unhinges them from the game world. You need to explain things at a player level here --- "yeah, sorry, I winged a ruling and think the effect is too powerful in retrospect, let's try to find something that seems like a better consistent ruling, and say that one time you just got lucky" or something.

Frankly a lot of your issues sound like communication issues, not system issues, but this one in particular strikes me: you have to accept that both you and the player are people trying to enjoy this game, and talk.

 

[djotaku]

We are definitely more in tune with the complexities of the hobby than the average player.
I can safely say that of all my players, I don't think any of them will have heard of any of the games besides 2014 5E. That includes 5.5. They didn't even know it was being released.

I'm not surprised. I've got a bunch of hobbies and geek groups I'm involved in. It never ceases to surprise me that something I think "everyone" in that group knows isn't known to whoever I'm talking to.

 

[tetrasodium]

In my opinion, the game needs consistency, as it's the only way players can make informed decisions. If you just flat-out say "no, you can't do that flip you did last time" or "you can do the flip, but that bonus was special and you won't get it again" because the effect is broken, that feels arbitrary and unhinges them from the game world. You need to explain things at a player level here --- "yeah, sorry, I winged a ruling and think the effect is too powerful in retrospect, let's try to find something that seems like a better consistent ruling, and say that one time you just got lucky" or something.

Frankly a lot of your issues sound like communication issues, not system issues, but this one in particular strikes me: you have to accept that both you and the player are people trying to enjoy this game, and talk.

You just proved why the point @Retreater made is true and demonstrated why the outrage he noted is accurate. In one single post you mentioned five times how the gm needs to do things better more thoroughly better understood and so on in service of consistency.

However not once did you mention that the player needs to remember their own contributions and the times claiming the example of to being from a hot climate (or whatever) should grant x&y benefit so they can proactively plan for not being from the example cold climate and gracefully accept the times past claims for boon should be a thorn. That exclusive responsibility placed on the gm coupled with wotc's & the community's eagerness to absolve players of even the bareist hint of responsibility is why it works to react by "getting legit angry when he interprets that [the dm is] "out to get him."when half baked design like endlessly flogging "rulings not rules" as the only and only falls in any direction other than the Mary Sue type, the player can explain defense from other players and anyone who hears the story while the gm is automatically assumed to be in the wrong with zero possibility of having made a reasonable call.

 

[bsss]

You just proved why the point @Retreater made is true and demonstrated why the outrage he noted is accurate. In one single post you mentioned five times how the gm needs to do things better more thoroughly better understood and so on in service of consistency.

If that's how you want to see it. The GM gets the players and experience at the table they cultivate. It's like tending to a garden. If he would prefer to say no/too bad to player ideas/concerns, have his players get "legit angry", and then be frustrated about and swear off the game because his players are angry, that's his prerogative I guess. He can give up or try to find better players or whatever, but here's what I recommend: actually talk to them.

(Also, you bolded some "you"s in spots I'm not referring to Retreater at all. I'm sorry if my suggestion to communicate with players made you pop off about WotC and Mary Sues or whatever without understanding the content of my post.)

 

[tetrasodium]

If that's how you want to see it. The GM gets the players and experience at the table they cultivate. It's like tending to a garden. If he would prefer to say no/too bad to player ideas/concerns, have his players get "legit angry", and then be frustrated about and swear off the game because his players are angry, that's his prerogative I guess. He can give up or try to find better players or whatever, but here's what I recommend: actually talk to them.

(Also, you bolded some "you"s in spots I'm not referring to Retreater at all. I'm sorry if my suggestion to communicate with players made you pop off about WotC and Mary Sues or whatever without understanding the content of my post.)

Um... Do you not accept that the player also shares responsibility towards the vaunted consistency and communication raised in both your posts? It seems like you only speak about the gm upholding those two.

 

[bsss]

Um... Do you not accept that the player also shares responsibility towards the vaunted consistency and communication raised in both your posts? It seems like you only speak about the gm upholding those two.

The player absolutely shares that responsibility to communicate and seek a consistent game --- but I'm not talking to them, I'm talking to Retreater. If the angry player was here I'd have essentially the same advice.

 

[tetrasodium]

The player absolutely shares that responsibility to communicate and seek a consistent game --- but I'm not talking to them, I'm talking to Retreater. If the angry player was here I'd have essentially the same advice.

That seems in conflict with your last couple posts going back to your 284 response to 283 though. If simply attempting to clear the air with details and explain that his gm calls are being misinterpreted after being accused of making up rules and punishing his players suggests that the next logical step is to respond to those efforts preaching communication & consistency how could any gm ever actually engage in that communication as long as the player is willing to simply react with anger and claim the gm is out to get them knowing that sticking to that is an unquestionable defense the gm will always wind up assumed to be off base over as long as the player doesn't budge.