D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[Micah Sweet]

Absolutely. But as the designers were quite clear when 5E was being made and came out that it was going back to the DIY aesthetic... people should have listened to them. And if that meant sticking with 3E or PF or 4E so that they had their established and set rules, then they should have done so... rather than continually try and get 5E to also go in that direction.

Mike, Jeremy et. al. never once tried to cover over what 5E was doing. Rulings, Not Rules. Always there, always the focus of 5E. If people didn't want to believe them or didn't want to go along with it, that was on them. And no one was under any obligation to try and make them feel better for going against the type of game 5E was.

I'm thinking 5.5 is going to be less that kind of game.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah ... look, I don't think you understood what I wrote. But given that you responded by asking if I am playing the same game, I am not sure that further discussion is helpful. I hope you find your happiness wherever it may lie!

No I think I understood it and we disagree on just how much the rules presented in the PHB impact the GM. Wotc has made various hints that some of them would be "better" or "improved", but that's a rather low bar & there's not much reason to avoid even describing how those things are better & improved to the degree that has been demonstrated.

Ironically this "it's just the PHB" tangent came about because I cited what might be the only clear example of DM "pain points" that we've seen being addressed back in post 483 & noted in 489 that some of us were not looking towards character sheet populating stuff as the only factor under consideration.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The problem is "enjoyable" isn't a binary. A lot of times people will enjoy a game sometimes, and have real problems with it others, either because some aspects of the game are really good and some aren't, or because the GM (and sometimes other players) can be hit or miss. So do you toss out the game because of the bad parts or stick with it because of the good? I'd suggest a lot of people stick with it, but still have problems with it.

Even more than that, the GM's skill is not some hegemonic thing. Few GMs are perfectly equally good at every single aspect of GMing. I'm terrible at keeping games focused and moving at a decent clip; every adventure I think will take only 3-4 sessions ends up taking 8+, I swear. One GM may be an absolute legend for memorable, exciting combats...and absolute garbage at "puzzles" or "mysteries" etc. Another may write the most believable, emotionally-affecting characters you've ever seen, but be worse than a fever-addled five year old when it comes to making consistent and productive adjudication.

Then you add in the interpersonal angle, friendships and past history and emotional attachment...yeah. Very frequently, the choice is not at all as simple as "stay with bad thing" vs "leave bad thing with zero other consequences or effects."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Absolutely. But as the designers were quite clear when 5E was being made and came out that it was going back to the DIY aesthetic... people should have listened to them. And if that meant sticking with 3E or PF or 4E so that they had their established and set rules, then they should have done so... rather than continually try and get 5E to also go in that direction.

Mike, Jeremy et. al. never once tried to cover over what 5E was doing. Rulings, Not Rules. Always there, always the focus of 5E. If people didn't want to believe them or didn't want to go along with it, that was on them. And no one was under any obligation to try and make them feel better for going against the type of game 5E was.

The whole modular thing that never materialized (and people keep insisting never happened) gave people a nice false hope that the full release or a future book would patch that issue for those that wanted it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm thinking 5.5 is going to be less that kind of game.

Quite possibly. None of the videos around the new books have talked about 'Rulings, Not Rules'... which could mean several different things-- it's becoming less of a focus for them, or nothing has changed and it's still the standard. I don't think any of us can make any concrete assessments of either way at this point and won't know until we get the books in hand.

The only thing I suspect will not the case is a change back to 3E-era "A Rule For Everything". If only because that would have been a large enough change that they probably would have needed to mention it when going over a lot of their new rules and such. I of course could be wrong... but that's only my impression.

 

[overgeeked]

Absolutely. But as the designers were quite clear when 5E was being made and came out that it was going back to the DIY aesthetic... people should have listened to them. And if that meant sticking with 3E or PF or 4E so that they had their established and set rules, then they should have done so... rather than continually try and get 5E to also go in that direction.

Mike, Jeremy et. al. never once tried to cover over what 5E was doing. Rulings, Not Rules. Always there, always the focus of 5E. If people didn't want to believe them or didn't want to go along with it, that was on them. And no one was under any obligation to try and make them feel better for going against the type of game 5E was.

Most referees and players at the time paid attention. The vast majority of the referees and players now playing the game weren’t involved in the hobby at that time. It’s clearly spelled out in the DMG…which no one reads. So it’s neither a mystery nor a surprise this happens. When they get to the DM videos and content I really hope they hammer this point home. Rulings, not rules. Customization and DIY. Etc.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The whole modular thing that never materialized (and people keep insisting never happened) gave people a nice false hope that the full release or a future book would patch that issue for those that wanted it.

Yeah, but then again WotC never actually said anything after those initial quotes by Monte Cook et. al. back before when the game was still in design phase that would reiterate a belief that the modularity they thought they should be getting was actually going to happen.

People hear what they want to hear. Say the words "backwards compatible" and everyone will give all their reasons why WotC was or was not telling the truth about that phrase-- even when WotC specifically told us what THEY meant when they said "backwards compatible". Didn't matter to a lot of people. Just like when they said their hopes and intentions were for 5E to be "modular" and to let you play in the style of the edition you liked... some people interpreted that to mean 5E and their preferred game would be indistinguishable from each other. Even though anyone with 1/8th of a brain could see as the rules were coming out that none of these were exact copies. And that WotC's opinion of "same style of game" and every player's opinion of "same style of game" were not the same.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, but then again WotC never actually said anything after those initial quotes by Monte Cook et. al. back before when the game was still in design phase that would reiterate a belief that the modularity they thought they should be getting was actually going to happen.

Yes. Of course it's not a lie if you never correct something that becomes a falsehood. Everyone knows that.

Like how I intend to give everyone in this thread one million dollars.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes. Of course it's not a lie if you never correct something that becomes a falsehood. Everyone knows that.

Like how I intend to give everyone in this thread one million dollars.

For your metaphor to work... you would have had to say something like "I have millions and millions of dollars. I'm going to give you some..." and then you give someone $20 even though they thought they were getting a million. You have not lied to them... they got what you said you were giving them-- some money... the listener just expected something different because of desperate hope and a matter of degrees.

We have seen plenty of people here on these boards talk about their 5E games, and the feeling they got from them being like the feelings they got playing other editions. To them, the stuff they could put into their 5E game to feel like whatever edition they enjoyed previously was good for them. So did WotC state a falsehood? Not for those people.

But sure... there are also a heck of a lot of people who expected all these new rules being written in all these new books to be so airtight such that the two games would be almost the same-- nevermind the fact none of us could conceive of any way that could be remotely possible. But since 5E was not a direct continuation of their other preferred system and there was going to be no way to make 5E into their preferred system... in their mind they were lied to. Which... fine. If they think they were lied to, then so be it. But if I had to guess... I'd say the amount of things said by a lot of players with (at least in my opinion) really outrageous expectations of how much 5E would mimic 4E for example (or any of the previous games)... WotC just threw up their hands and shrugged their shoulders because of those outrageous expectations.

Now could they have just come out and said "Okay... the game has changed from what our original hopes were in terms of modularity, and now the game is this..."? Sure. And that would have placated some people. But I don't for a second believe it would have made everyone happy. I think plenty of people would still be pissed off and constantly complaining about this if for no other reason that they didn't get what THEY wanted. So instead WotC just let their actions with 5E speak louder than their words.

Because at the end of the day, I don't believe a lot of people want honesty... they just want to be RIGHT. At least, that's how I feel about it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

For your metaphor to work... you would have had to say something like "I have millions and millions of dollars. I'm going to give you some..." and then you give someone $20 even though they thought they were getting a million.

That wouldn't be my analogy.

Because in yours, you got the thing I said, just not what you expected as opposed to nothing.