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

[TiQuinn]

I've said no D&D is better than bad D&D, but it's a harder question if no D&D is better than mediocre D&D.

I know that my answer would be mediocre is still bad, but I may tolerate it for just a little longer before deciding I’m wasting my time.

 

[TiQuinn]

But the better scenario in either event is for everyone at the table just be freaking adults and have a conversation. Come to a compromise. And if a compromise cannot be found (because everyone has specific wants/needs/desires and usually the DM gets final say if it's something they aren't willing to compromise on)... then at least everyone has heard each others statements and can know specifically why someone decides to step away from the game. No guesswork. No mistaken inference.

Yep. All of this. I don’t know if people truly don’t know how to have these kinds of discussions, or maybe they do but still feel like they didn’t get what they wanted in the compromise and so gripe here about it, or maybe there was no compromise at all because someone ended up being incapable of it at their table, but it sure seems like this is the best available answer to these kinds of issues.

 

[tetrasodium]

There's a big difference between...

"Ha ha! You have no choice in the matter! You have to play this D&D game in the manner I have put forth!"

and

"These are the genre, atmosphere and rules for the gamer I am running. If you don't wish to play D&D in this manner, then you do not have play in this campaign. You're free to decide."

And I think it is an extreme exaggeration if someone suggests that the former is the primary thing we see of the two. Because most DMs just don't care who plays in their games or not. There are almost always players out there looking for games. So a DM with reasonable campaign set up and some preferred specifics will be able to find players to fill those seats more often than not... also because many players just don't care about campaign specifics either. "No dragonborn and warlocks in this game? No problem!"

And for the few players a restriction like that is a hill too far? Well... they can just choose not to join the campaign. And the DM doesn't have to "force" or "coerce" anybody.

That's rich considering that fixing the bolded but there is one of the most dramatic changes to RAW that has come out of the videos wotc has been putting out the last couple weeks... Of course there is the tiny problem that the fix was to correct for how the 2014 ruleset gave that mindset to the players and shifted it to simply acknowledging that everyone at the table has a role that should not be treated as a sidekick afterthought from the getgo like 2014's RAW did.

Spoiler: said change in RAW

2014 didn't even hint at giving lip service to that kind of stuff until after characters had been completed entirely along with their backstories goals & so on.

Teaching new players that"give me everything I want and nobody needs to listen to you or discuss things till The Star PC is ready" for you" & then reinforcing that mindset at every turn it could be reinforced had consequences. It's almost like all the complaints of inflexible GM's who refuse to meet players halfway in mutual compromise highlights the result of those inappropriately set expectations 2014 gave. Luckily 2024 seems to be fixing at least some of that even if the examples are currently slim.

That single page we have demonstrates a shift in two different examples from two different books published years apart. It's reasonable to assume they are not going to be the only examples of improved expectations.

 

[Remathilis]

That's rich considering that fixing the bolded but there is one of the most dramatic changes to RAW that has come out of the videos wotc has been putting out the last couple weeks... Of course there is the tiny problem that the fix was to correct for how the 2014 ruleset gave that mindset to the players and shifted it to simply acknowledging that everyone at the table has stole that should not be treated as a sidekick afterthought from the getgo like 2014's RAW did.

Spoiler: said change in RAW

View attachment 370383
2014 didn't even hint at giving lip service to that kind of stuff until after characters had been completed entirely along with their backstories goals & so on.

Teaching new players that"give me everything I want and nobody needs to listen to you or discuss things till The Star PC is ready" for you" & then reinforcing that mindset at every turn it could be reinforced had consequences. It's almost like all the complaints of inflexible GM's who refuse to meet players halfway in mutual compromise highlights the result of those inappropriately set expectations 2014 gave. Luckily 2024 seems to be fixing at least some of that even if the examples are currently slim.

That single page we have demonstrates a shift in two different examples from two different books published years apart. It's reasonable to assume they are not going to be the only examples of improved expectations.

I'm happy to see that WotC finally alleviated your primary concern and you can enjoy the latest edition in peace.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You are correct. Voicing a preference is not whining. If that's all you do. But you know as well as I do that most of the time around here the "voicing a preference" is coupled with insults to the designers of D&D for being morons who didn't get the "obvious rules" right, and usually no reference to actually fixing their problems themselves, giving the impression with their words that they are going to just be mad because they aren't getting what they want.

Ok. If you say it that way, I do agree. Designer bashing is not OK. Especially if the only reason is that they design the game with a different point of view.

Is this everybody? Nope. Does it happen way more than it should if this place was full of mature adults? Abso-freaking-lutely.

Agreed.

The D&D game that was published in 5E14 and the one that will be published in 5E24 have a lot of rules... many of which I don't prefer to use. Why? Because that's what WotC wrote. Now I cannot change any of that. The book is written and nothing I can say or do will go back in time and re-write things. So if I come here and state my preferences... they should be coupled with the understanding and inference from the readers that I know the game is the game and my comments are not trying to change anything. For me personally? My comments on rules preference are usually attached to how I have changed the rules myself to give me what I want. I don't like X rule... so I've decided to use Y rule instead.

In many cases though, wishing for revisions does not mean that if it does not happen it is the end of a world.
It is totally ok tonsay that you wished a rule would be different. But yes, if one rule does not suit you, change it.

Why? One, because it makes me look like less of a schmuck. I had a problem, and I fixed my problem. I didn't just show up here and write posts that seem to imply I'm just holding my breath until WotC solves my problem for me by re-writing the rules to my satisfaction. And two... who knows, maybe someone with a similar problem will see how I've house ruled my game to fix it and think "Hmm, that's a good idea! I think I'll yoink that!" Granted... I suspect that's a much lower occurrence, because I personally suspect that most of the time when posters come on here they aren't looking to solve their own problems, they are just looking to vent. And while some are reasonable about it, a lot of times it seems like it doesn't matter to them who they insult when they do so-- whether it's the designers for not writing things they want, or other players for not having the same feelings they do and thus contributing to the groupthink or survey results that keeps WotC from changing things to they way they want.

With dndbeyond it is just more convenient if you don't have to overwrite things constantly. Convenience. Not more.

As far as expressing displeasure at the table (and not here on EN World)? If (general) you as a player/DM are not willing to state some preferences you have, or listen to the preferences given (whether they be players or DM)... there is absolutely no reason to think you are ever going to get the experience you want because the other people at the table won't KNOW the experience you want. Which means one of two things... either you play the game as it is and are not happy... or you leave the game without giving any indication why. Both aren't great, but the latter will probably result in less bad feelings over the course of the game. But the better scenario in either event is for everyone at the table just be freaking adults and have a conversation. Come to a compromise. And if a compromise cannot be found (because everyone has specific wants/needs/desires and usually the DM gets final say if it's something they aren't willing to compromise on)... then at least everyone has heard each others statements and can know specifically why someone decides to step away from the game. No guesswork. No mistaken inference. The DM was running a game one way... a player did not wish to play in that way... the player says they are going to step out of the game for everyone's happiness... the DM finds another player to take the spot... and the game goes on with everyone on the same page.

As far as I can see... none of this is hard.

Depends on how easy it is to find people to play with. And in some places, clearer rules make communication easier. Because most problems arise if two people have interpreted rules differently and both thought they were correct and base decisions on them. It is easier to adapt a rule to your preference if you actually know what the official rule is. Without referring to any sage advice (which we often ignored because we liked our inerpretation more).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Ok. If you say it that way, I do agree. Designer bashing is not OK. Especially if the only reason is that they design the game with a different point of view.

Agreed.

In many cases though, wishing for revisions does not mean that if it does not happen it is the end of a world.
It is totally ok tonsay that you wished a rule would be different. But yes, if one rule does not suit you, change it.

With dndbeyond it is just more convenient if you don't have to overwrite things constantly. Convenience. Not more.

Depends on how easy it is to find people to play with. And in some places, clearer rules make communication easier. Because most problems arise if two people have interpreted rules differently and both thought they were correct and base decisions on them. It is easier to adapt a rule to your preference if you actually know what the official rule is. Without referring to any sage advice (which we often ignored because we liked our inerpretation more).

I'll also say this in your defense (and as a corrective measure to myself)... I will admittedly shoot too wide sometimes when people are stating preferences. I will occasionally lump people who don't deserve it into the morass of people who insult their fellow players/designers for playing or making so-called "bad rules" and come back probably harsher than that person should have gotten. That's on me. I tend to be very quick with my retorts, so my apologies if I targeted you unfairly.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'll also say this in your defense (and as a corrective measure to myself)... I will admittedly shoot too wide sometimes when people are stating preferences. I will occasionally lump people who don't deserve it into the morass of people who insult their fellow players/designers for playing or making so-called "bad rules" and come back probably harsher than that person should have gotten. That's on me. I tend to be very quick with my retorts, so my apologies if I targeted you unfairly.

Apology accepted.

I also sometimes shoot way over the target. I hate it if designers are unfairly and unfoundedly bashed. Especially if that comes frome people who just seem to hang around to bash them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sometimes a DM finds people that are a fit and sometimes they don't. I've seen both. We assume that "well I would just leave if our play styles clash" but that ignores social and external factors like distance, scheduling, friendship circles, etc. A player might play because his friends play, even if he's not having as much fun. Sometimes a DM can't find anyone but players who want a certain style of gaming. I've said no D&D is better than bad D&D, but it's a harder question if no D&D is better than mediocre D&D.

I will say what I'm willing to play is much broader than what I'm willing to run. If I don't have players who want to play what I'm in the mood to run, I'll just play in one of their games.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm happy to see that WotC finally alleviated your primary concern and you can enjoy the latest edition in peace.

So far from the UAs & videos we have seen wotc has shown almost nothing but stuff aimed at players, anything else vaguely hinted at without specifics may as well be vapor at this point. Some of us are not looking at player facing character sheet options as the deciding factor in which of the new systems we ultimately move to.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It’s strange that no one has talked about a middle ground which I’ve found more common, frankly:

The GM/DM suggests a few different types of systems and genres they are willing to run and let the group discuss and decide what interests everyone.

This is usually what I try to do.