D&D General 6E But A + Thread

[Scribe]

Ok, but why? Is there not a game that suits your desire for storygaming already? Why is it important to you that D&D's rules encourage it?

I don't mean to badger you, I just don't get the desire for the game you prefer to play to be called D&D.

Are you implying that D&D is not a story telling game?? lol

Just what direction do you think D&D is headed in?

 

[Reynard]

Indeed. For me they're an attribute of the character all day long.

Characters, or players?

Even if the player isn't present at the session the character should still be there in the fiction (unless you're in downtime for that session). And if the character's there in the fiction doing what it would normally do, it gets xp for that.

Sure, as long as the character is in as much peril as usual.

The thing is, lots of players don't want their character getting killed while they are not at the game, so their character is handwaved to be "watching the horses" or whatever. And last I check, watching the horses was not a challenge.

 

[ECMO3]

Ok, but why? Is there not a game that suits your desire for storygaming already? Why is it important to you that D&D's rules encourage it?

Because I like to play D&D and if you are asking me what I want in D&D it is a game that is more supportive of that.

We are talking about changes to the current D&D rules and you can make this strawman argument -why not play something else- with respect to any proposed changes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are you implying that D&D is not a story telling game?? lol

Just what direction do you think D&D is headed in?

I think D&D is heading in a narrative-focused direction (just slowly, and in fits and starts). What I'm trying to understand is why someone would desire that D&D make a pretty significant change (particularly that is so different from previous incarnations) to accommodate their interests when games exist right now that already do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because I like to play D&D and if you are asking me what I want in D&D it is a game that is more supportive of that.

We are talking about changes to the current D&D rules and you could put this strawman argument -why not play something else- to counter any proposed changes.

But by your own admission D&D doesn't suit your preferences as well as other games might. So why does D&D appeal to you? I can tell you why I play the version of 5e (not D&D) that I do, even though I dislike the current version of the official game personally and wouldn't want the changes you propose. I'm just curious what appeals to you in D&D if it doesn't suit your preferences? For me it's accessibility for my players, and rules changes that suit my preferences better than WotC 5e.

 

[TwoSix]

Characters, or players?

Even if the player isn't present at the session the character should still be there in the fiction (unless you're in downtime for that session). And if the character's there in the fiction doing what it would normally do, it gets xp for that.

For 5e, we usually just have the character backgrounded (they're conceptually there, but don't participate and are under no risk outside of a TPK happening) or there's a diegetic rationale for the character to disappear (in my friend's game, they would be sucked into the "Purple Pendant of Plot" for the session and were helping a powerful mage NPC).

Regardless, the player/character wouldn't have their leveling impacted; everyone levels at the same time. That's what I mean by "XP is intrinsically tied to the player", although I guess to be more exact XP/level is simply a function of the campaign and the benchmarks for leveling the DM has placed.

 

[Scribe]

I think D&D is heading in a narrative-focused direction (just slowly, and in fits and starts). What I'm trying to understand is why someone would desire that D&D make a pretty significant change (particularly that is so different from previous incarnations) to accommodate their interests when games exist right now that already do.

I think the reason is those fits and starts. Depending on who you ask (and I would be one) 5e, is a mess, it lacks focus, it lacks intentional design.

A lot of that can be tightened up to make it the game it actually wants to be, and yeah that would be more narrative if I was a betting man.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the reason is those fits and starts. Depending on who you ask (and I would be one) 5e, is a mess, it lacks focus, it lacks intentional design.

A lot of that can be tightened up to make it the game it actually wants to be, and yeah that would be more narrative if I was a betting man.

Makes sense, thank you. My original proposal for a noncompatible 6e I would be glad to see come out (so I could more easily ignore the official game) from the beginning of the thread would also in all likelihood be much more narrative, I expect.

 

[Minigiant]

My ideal would be something like this, although I'm not tied to any of the specific details.​

1) At character start, there are something like 20 classes, all of which go to level 6. Every character picks 2 of the 20, although there are special rules for characters who want to pick just one.

​

2) Characters pick a prestige class at level 7, which covers advancement from 7 to 14. There are a few prestige classes in the PHB, but most are in the DMG or later supplements, and are tied to diegetic achievements, not character build.

3) Characters pick a master class at level 15, which advances to 20. Just like prestige classes in that almost all of them are discoverable rewards, not build tools.

No level-by-level multiclassing.

I'd do something similar

1. Each class would go in a category: Adept (aka Gish), Mage, Priest, Scoundrel, Warrior, or Other.
   1. Bob chooses to be a Warrior. Bob is a level 1 Warrior.
2. Each category would have a Basic class of the same name. Those classes would have only a few features and only got up to level 5.
   1. Bob levels and gets proficiency with simple and martial weapons, all armor, shields. He gets 2 Weapon Foci.
3. At level 5 in a basic class you may convert to a level 1 Advanced class. Advanced classes would have the same basic features of its parent class. Advanced classes go to level 20.
   1. Bob converts from level 5 Warrior to level 1 Fighter. Bob's HD go from 5 d8s to 5 d10s. Bob gets Action Surge and eventual Second Wind and Indomitable.
   2. Charlie died. Charlie's player creates Ed. He rolls up a level 5 Cleric
4. At level 5 in an Advanced class, you choose a subclass.
   1. Bob chooses to be a Battlemaster and is a Level 5 (Battlemaster) Fighter
   2. Ed is a level 5 Light Cleric.
5. Upon reaching level 10 of an Advanced class, you may choose to become a level 1 version of a Prestige class if they qualify. Prestige classes do not necessarily contain the class features of their parent Advanced class. You keep your subclass and feats
   1. Bob chooses to be an Arcane Archer. Bob loses his fighter and Battlemaster features and stats up a 10 HD level 1 Arcane Archer.
   2. Ed remains a Light Cleric
   3. Fred joins and stats up a level 1 Shadowdancer with 10 HD Fred does not have to look at any basic or Advanced classes rules.

 

[Umbran]

Ok, but why?

Mod note:
The entire thread is a hypothetical. Please allow folks to engage without having to justify themselves for not agreeing with what you would prefer.