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

[Micah Sweet]

I think it's fine to have limits, but I thinkit'ss also good to be flexible. I'm pretty flexible with regards to species and classes, but I am very hard on theme. Don't make a butterfly-chasing pacifist for my Ravenloft game, for example. And that give and take works for me because my group are all friends that have been playing for 20+ years. If this group dissolved, I'm pretty sure that would be the end of my gaming days. So I balance my desires against those of my group, and we compromise.

I feel that. When my best friend passed away a few years ago and our group dissolved, I came very close to doing what most of the others in my group did and giving up on gaming altogether. It's still never really been like it was (mostly because I used to have peers who shared many of my preferences and history in the hobby).

 

[Thomas Shey]

It seems like you have an issue realizing that the person saying “no gaming is better than bad gaming” is speaking for themselves.

Because often, they effectively aren't. They're using that term in regards to other people having problems to suggest they should just stop if they don't have a good way to deal with the problems they're having. What people want to do themselves is entirely their own business; when its being used as a response to other people's problems, I think its a blithe dismissal.

It’s a suggestion for others but no one is under any obligation to listen to it. This is pretty self-evident unless you think that I’m some higher authority that you need to keep appealing your case to.

Whether they're under obligation or not, as a suggestion I'd say its often dismissive and usually useless.

 

[Oofta]

I think it's fine to have limits, but I thinkit'ss also good to be flexible. I'm pretty flexible with regards to species and classes, but I am very hard on theme. Don't make a butterfly-chasing pacifist for my Ravenloft game, for example. And that give and take works for me because my group are all friends that have been playing for 20+ years. If this group dissolved, I'm pretty sure that would be the end of my gaming days. So I balance my desires against those of my group, and we compromise.

The main reason I draw a hard line is because I have a shared persistent world. I do make exceptions if the PC can pass as human. So last game we had and Aasmimar and a goliath. But the Aasimar's eyes didn't glow when she was casting a spell and the goliath was just a big human. Both had an in-world backstory for them

When it comes to campaigns theme, I'm pretty open. Of course the last time I started a new campaign with my old group they said some to the effect of "We trust you, do whatever you want."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Don't make a butterfly-chasing pacifist for my Ravenloft game, for example.

Kind of a weird example. Isn't half the point of Ravenloft being to break people (the other half being Ironic Hell)?

Feels like a butterfly chasing pacifist being thrust into a world if infinite sadness and violence would be what some people consider a good RP opportunity. Moreso than a preexisting grey-morality sad boy who's just going to go with it and might make a good Dark Power themself.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure. But when those people then come here onto EN World and argue for what they want for HUNDREDS of thread pages back and forth... I can't help but laugh to myself and wonder what exactly it is they think they are accomplishing, LOL.

It got me a spot at a great DM's table playing a character that I actually enjoy with players who are funny, respectful, and supportive. I'd say it paid off.

 

[TiQuinn]

They're using that term in regards to other people having problems to suggest they should just stop if they don't have a good way to deal with the problems they're having.

Yes, because it’s actually effective. I’d love to hear your recommendation for resolving their issues someday that doesn’t involve constantly contradicting my point without suggesting alternatives but it’s not gonna be today because I’m tired of you now.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

In my experience, playing with friends is when it's more likely for things to work out. DMs and players are both much more willing to alter things to make everyone happy if they are friends, than if the players are strangers.

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.

In the past I would have agreed with you, but there are a ton of online games out there these days. It shouldn't be that hard to find a game with your playstyle to play in if you really want to play.

 

[pemerton]

To be fair, a lot of people have strong preferences towards codification and clarity. Playing a game where the rules mutate based on personal preference and whim make them feel less attached to the game.

The move from the DIY nature of early AD&D to the "Let's just play RAW" mindset of 3e wasn't a weird aberration; it was popularized because a large portion of the player base was more comfortable with a fixed ruleset.

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.

Maybe I'm out of touch . . . but 5e D&D doesn't strike me as very DIY in its aesthetic. I don't really see much resemblance between it and classic D&D in this respect.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The "Talk to the DM to find out what he's doing and if he has changed anything" isn't new. It was in the 2014 PHB as well, just in a different spot. Moving it to the character creation section is much better and makes it less likely to be overlooked by the players.

That page indicates that the DM is still the authority over the game in 5.5e and the players need to find out what the DM is doing.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

%^$#*# He gave me a million doll hairs.