D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[TwoSix]

I figured build choices/character design would have an impact. What I was asking about decisions is something along the lines of if prior resolutions and decisions of honesty have shown the PC to be very honest, will future tests of honesty be skewed towards success?

Interesting question. My approach as a player and a DM would be to allow previous actions to enforce concepts for future actions. If your character has proved themselves willing to accept the consequences for honesty before, then yes, future tests of a similar veins should be easier or automatically successful, although that (of course) could be impacted by the stakes.

I don't know how many games build that into the resolution mechanics themselves. I can think of a few games where your skill at something, even mental resistances, gets built up by testing those skills. But it isn't that common, I think.

 

[Remathilis]

Just to clear up semantics, when I say "play to find out", I mean specifically I want the dice and the game's resolution engine to tell me the answer, based on my character design and decisions.

If "play to find out" for you means you leave your character concept relatively ambiguous until the situation comes up in play, and then make the decision about the character, that's perfectly understandable. I just want to be clear that wasn't how I was using the term. I don't think either usage is right or wrong, just want to provide clarity as to my position.

This reminds me of the time Gary Gygax was in Futurama. He appears to the other characters and says "I'm Gary Gygax and I'm..." :: rolls dice:: "... pleased to meet you!" We laugh at that because we know it's mocking the idea of reaction rolls. There is no reason at that moment for Gary to really have any reaction but the polite indifference of meeting a new person. But we can imagine the world where Gary rolls a hostile or violent reaction instead!

When I see "dice and resolution mechanics" to determine your character, I see the same joke played straight. The dice determines what you think or feel, and all you can do is interpret and express what the dice say your character believes. You walk into the bar and roll to see if you like the bartender. The result is filtered though your alignment and then you play out the reaction. Don't like the bartender? You're reaction can be anytime from silently sneering to leaving to burning the bar down (depending on if your LG, CN, or CE). That too me doesn't feel like I'm playing the character, only piloting it.

And hey, if you like it, do it. Some people love randomly determining every aspect of their character from ability scores onwards. I don't. If I'm a player, I don't control a lot of things in the world, but I do control this one character and I want the ability to think and act with them as I see fit (within the limitations of the game rules).

 

[TwoSix]

When I see "dice and resolution mechanics" to determine your character, I see the same joke played straight. The dice determines what you think or feel, and all you can do is interpret and express what the dice say your character believes. You walk into the bar and roll to see if you like the bartender. The result is filtered though your alignment and then you play out the reaction. Don't like the bartender? You're reaction can be anytime from silently sneering to leaving to burning the bar down (depending on if your LG, CN, or CE). That too me doesn't feel like I'm playing the character, only piloting it.

Sure. I'm definitely more in the "I enjoy piloting" camp, I like seeing the results of a character's actions more than I like "being" a character. Expressing those results is where a lot of the fun and gameplay is, for me.

Granted, I don't want to results to be truly "random", like rolling my actions on the confusion table or something. I just like it to be game engine driven if my character is able to be truly honest, or recognize someone else's deception, etc.

The only time I don't gravitate towards that is OSR games, where the focus of the gameplay is on driving the character to overcome a specific set of challenges while exploring a hazardous site. There, maintaining decision-making agency is more important to focus the gameplay on player decision-making skill.

And hey, if you like it, do it. Some people love randomly determining every aspect of their character from ability scores onwards. I don't. If I'm a player, I don't control a lot of things in the world, but I do control this one character and I want the ability to think and act with them as I see fit (within the limitations of the game rules).

I enjoy games with a fair amount of randomness in character building, but I also enjoy some more detailed character building as well. What they have in common is once my character is in the game, I like to keep a loose hand and just let things happen.

In 3.5 terms, I would want to have my Prestige class be something I uncover in play, not something I'm targeting from the start of the game.

 

[DeviousQuail]

Like:
-5e's evolution in regards to summons, most prominently from Tasha's. Much easier to run and play than the conjure spells.
-Feats that give you the "whole package" so to speak. I'm not against feat-chains, but the time in between getting feats is just too long in 5e for me to want them.
-Hit dice and healing surges that free up the need for dedicated healers.

Dislike:
-Lack of benefit for being high dexterity and high strength. Too much overlap compared to other attributes.
-No paragon paths. Not that it needed to be exactly like how 4e did it, but I think levels 11-20 are boring for most classes and paragon paths could solve that.
-Not doing more with half-prof or anything with 1.5x prof. Easy miss for WotC.
-The implementation of short/long rests. I'm fine with the idea, but I think there other games have done it better.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Likes:

Moving away from pc's as average people and towards pcs as special even among adventurers. That's just the kind of fantasy I like; average Joes against monsters is more of a horror vibe. I can understand why other people don't like this bu I do.

I think the game mechanics overall have gotten better over time in most measures; not exactly linearly but the progress is overall positive.

Dislikes:

The push to homogenize DnD settings, by doing things like assuming strongly that all published races must exist in all settings, trying to unify magic and divine lore, adding more and more classes and tech with the assumption that it's all present; etc. I think the peak for DnD lore was 2e when settings were treated as fully distinct experiences with their own set of available options and distinct themes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Two of the things I liked over the editions was the inclusion of the Sorcerer and Warlock as new kinds of spellslingers.

I didn’t care for the mechanics of the Warlock until the 4Ed version came out, but I thought the core idea for the class was solid.

I also appreciated that 4Ed officially expanded the core variety of bloodlines explaining how Sorcerers gained their powers, and how that influenced spell selection. (I still preferred the 3.5Ed sorcerous heritage Feat trees flavors more, though.)

 

[Lanefan]

More importantly, don't make pronouncements from on high about what the "correct" limitations are, like telling us every world has elves but not half-orcs, or whatever. Instead, show us both how to (a) make those restrictions for any given world, and (b) actually benefit from those restrictions.

And then make it blindingly clear to players that the DM is allowed and-or expected to make those restrictions, thus don't assume everything in the books will be open for you to play.

Otherwise, the DM making restrictions comes off as the bad guy, every damn time.

But, as I have said before and gotten flack for doing so, "limitations breed creativity" is wrong. It should be "good limitations breed creativity". Or "constructive", if you don't like "good".

Thing is, not all limitations have a 'good' or 'bad' element to them. Oftentimes they just are what they are, as forced by external circumstances.

Example: I wrote/played music with some people for a long time, and for much of that time simply couldn't afford the (admittedly costly) gear I really wanted. Result: I had to accept the limitations in the gear I had, and work with that. Doing so led me to some (I think) quite creative solutions as to how to get at least vaguely close to the sound I wanted with gear that wasn't the least bit designed to do it.

In game terms, the DM is the external circumstance forcing a limitation.

Just having limitations merely to have limitations doesn't breed any more creativity than avoiding limitations solely to avoid them.

Here I think it depends on just how creative folks want to get and-or how much effort they want to put in in their attempts to end-around those limitations. Unlike my music example above, it's not a question of (the equivalent of) affordability.

The DM says "No Rangers in this campaign". If I had a Ranger in mind I could either accept that and play something else or I could use the classes and options that are allowed to build something as Ranger-like as possible.

Personal example: 3e didn't have a separate Illusionist class, but I wanted to play a 1e-like Illusionist. I put a lot of thought and effort into how I could use what 3e gave me to build the nearest equivalent, and that's what I played. In replicating a 1e Illusionist the experiment wasn't a smashing success, but as a character she was lovely!

 

[Lanefan]

Interesting question. My approach as a player and a DM would be to allow previous actions to enforce concepts for future actions. If your character has proved themselves willing to accept the consequences for honesty before, then yes, future tests of a similar veins should be easier or automatically successful, although that (of course) could be impacted by the stakes.

Agreed.

I don't know how many games build that into the resolution mechanics themselves. I can think of a few games where your skill at something, even mental resistances, gets built up by testing those skills. But it isn't that common, I think.

I think systemetizing this would be close to impossible in some aspects.

In-character physical aspects, sure. I once DMed a Centaur PC and whenever the party got to a set of stairs (particularly stairs going down) I'd have the player roll to see whether the Centaur made it safely. After the first half-dozen or so times this came up and the player aced every single roll, I just said "OK, you got this, no more rolls for stairs".

But roleplayed or social aspects, such as Mazperson's honest character? There it almost has to be table by table and even character by character, completely dependent on in-game prior character history and with so many variables both in-game and meta that putting it to a system would be a hopeless task.