Unearthed Arcana D&D Beyond: Jeremy Explaining Unearthed Arcana: Class Feature Variants

[gyor]

It's really great getting his thought processes behind this.

 

[Krachek]

Nice interview.
everybody is ok with character customization, but are we ready with game customization? That is all about.
he state that all these rules if they come official one day will be Variant, and the Dm will add them at will, by hand pick, and not as a balance package.
nice point of view about the game.

 

[Kurotowa]

everybody is ok with character customization, but are we ready with game customization? That is all about.
he state that all these rules if they come official one day will be Variant, and the Dm will add them at will, by hand pick, and not as a balance package.

This is different... how?

It's been 28 years since I first starting playing. In that entire stretch of time I don't think I've even once played a game the was straight RAW D&D. Even when the DM wasn't adding new house rules they were subtracting rules like encumbrance or morale they didn't feel were important to their game. Even now the DMG is just full of optional or specialized rules pieces that the DM will use or ignore at their own whim, making every table or every campaign slightly different.

The only difference with this pack is that they're more directly player facing in their impact. That might motivate players to actively ask the DM if they'll be allowed, but that's about it.

 

[Salthorae]

This is different... how?

True. Even at the end of 2e era the Skills & Powers were called Player's Options. They weren't part of the base ruleset.

In the 3.x era it was always up to a DM which books, etc they would allow too, so not much has changed in that regard.

I think the problem arises when options are officially published, there are a lot of players who feel entitled to those options. That then puts the DM in a position of having to say "no" and that can be either uncomfortable or contentious.

I don't have enough time or games to play all the different options they already have out there for us in 5e, so while I love many of these UA options, I don't know how much of an impact they will have on my games if/when they are published.

 

[Parmandur]

This is different... how?

The design ethos of 4E was "Everything is Core," and 3.x pushed hard on a simulationidt ethos of generalized norms. Crawford is big on the exception based design of 5E, so that new options only interact with the basic rules of the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is different... how?

It's been 28 years since I first starting playing. In that entire stretch of time I don't think I've even once played a game the was straight RAW D&D.

RaW was a 3.x era/PF-offshoot obsession.
Especially on-line.
3e made so many changes in the favor of players, especially players into builds & system mastery, that the impetus to insist everyone always use the Rules As Written was almost monolithic. And "RAW" was pretty debatable, so there was, well, a lot of debate about how the OneTrueRAW was necessarily the one that enabled this or that rock'n build.

You still see hints of it, when someone will respond to a reasonable ruling with "...but that would be a house rule!"

And, of course, the whole 5e warcry of "Rulings not Rules!" in the cause of DM Empowerment is a reaction against it.

Crawford is big on the exception based design of 5E

Is 5e still Exception-Based Design? 4e was very explicit about being Exception Based, and was rife with keywords, jargon, and precise phrasing that read like a technical manual, as a result.
I don't really think 5e is that into it, though I guess it might still be an aspect, because well, OT1H, they more emphasized 'Modular' (which they also didn't deliver, but which is subtly different), and OTOH, and more to the point, exception-based design is a very rules-centric, even tight, design philosophy, while 5e is DM-centric and natural-language, so more loose.
The rules are a starting point, the DM picks & chooses options, authors variants, and makes rulings. He needn't parse rules & exceptions to rules & exceptions to exceptions, except in exceptional circumstances... he just makes a ruling.

 

[Parmandur]

RaW was a 3.x era/PF-offshoot obsession.
Especially on-line.
3e made so many changes in the favor of players, especially players into builds & system mastery, that the impetus to insist everyone always use the Rules As Written was almost monolithic. And "RAW" was pretty debatable, so there was, well, a lot of debate about how the OneTrueRAW was necessarily the one that enabled this or that rock'n build.

You still see hints of it, when someone will respond to a reasonable ruling with "...but that would be a house rule!"

And, of course, the whole 5e warcry of "Rulings not Rules!" in the cause of DM Empowerment is a reaction against it.

Is 5e still Exception-Based Design? 4e was very explicit about being Exception Based, and was rife with keywords, jargon, and precise phrasing that read like a technical manual, as a result.
I don't really think 5e is that into it, though I guess it might still be an aspect, because well, OT1H, they more emphasized 'Modular' (which they also didn't deliver, but which is subtly different), and OTOH, and more to the point, exception-based design is a very rules-centric, even tight, design philosophy, while 5e is DM-centric and natural-language, so more loose.
The rules are a starting point, the DM picks & chooses options, authors variants, and makes rulings. He needn't parse rules & exceptions to rules & exceptions to exceptions, except in exceptional circumstances... he just makes a ruling.

It remains exception based in that particular rules do what they say, and aren't something to be generalized into a laws of physics in the Gameworld.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It remains exception based in that particular rules do what they say, and aren't something to be generalized into a laws of physics in the Gameworld.

Ironically, about like 3e, then "Specific beats general."
Except, DM beats specific, general, and nominally exception-based, thankyouverymuch.

 

[Parmandur]

Ironically, about like 3e, then "Specific beats general."
Except, DM beats specific, general, and nominally exception-based, thankyouverymuch.

Sure. What Crawford means by this, when he uses the phrase all the time, is that people coming along trying to make everything work the same way all the time aren't looking at it right. Rogue Expertise and the Champion Athletic feature both double Proficiency in a Skill, but they are not the same thing that can be made into broadly applicable laws. They are different rules, that do what they say, and nothing more. Rules as Civil Law, where the DM works in the rules and their view of the facts rather than precedent.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure. What Crawford means by this, when he uses the phrase all the time, is that people coming along trying to make everything work the same way all the time aren't looking at it right.

Not how it's been used before, at all - if a game uses exception based design, and is written in a clear & consistent enough way, everything will work the same way, because there won't be six ways to parse each thing.
But, hey, he gets paid to do this stuff, so if he wants to use it differently, whatever, it's his business, quite literally.