D&D 5E D&D Next: Deal with it, DM?

[Minigiant]

Something just occurred to me.

I heard somewhere that one of the main goals of D&DN/5e is to allow gamers of the different edition random play together.
That is all fine for the players. If I want to bike an AD&D style character, I simply do. If I want to create a 4th edition style character, I just build one.

But as a DM, I am supposed to play with all these guys. That is the intent of the game. This, however, give the DM less flexibility. If Joe has X and I don't particularly like X; one of will have to give as this is part of the game. If Joe walks, then we just missed one of the points of the game's creation.

This is not "No Psionics!" or "Low Magic" . Joe is supposed to play a Xed character, John is supposed to play a Yed style character, and the DM is supposed to play with both. Joe and John can leave their dealbreakers out their sheets but the DM will have to deal with whatever style of character Joe and John create.

I've read many people list their wants and don't wants. Many of them don't match but they are supposed to play together. It seems a new form of group play would be needed to be created for this work. One where gamers will have to live with the styles of others as not doing so it against the game's intention

I see this being for players as their interactions with the sheets of others is at a minimum. They are just told if they pass or fail.

But the DM isn't only on his side of the curtain. Certain aspects are essential to the styles of the different editions. It seems to me DMs will have to make the most considerations. So are DMs supposed to sit back a little more for the greater good?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Rules are tools. It's up to the DM to decide how to use them, or in this case what options to offer.

The point is to give the DM a meaningful toolbox. Every set of rules limits what you can do. The particular set of rules on the market right now is extremely specific and doesn't allow the DM many stylistic choices. The design goal is to fix that.

However, if you, as a DM, want to play a specific style or have a specific concept of what's balanced, you can limit the available options. Part of writing around options is encouraging this kind of thinking-not taking what's in the books as dogma.

No amount of flexibility is going to fix everyone's complaints, and regardless of the rules, there will be some people whose tastes simply don't agree.

 

[GM Dave]

I wouldn't worry on that.

There have always been more rules then people have used.

This has been true of the core rules, the auxiliary core rules, setting rules, and 3rd party produced materials.

Not everyone uses everything from the FR.

Not everyone uses encumbrance.

Not everyone uses time units to measure how long a torch provides light or when a group must rest to avoid taking minus to combat from fatigue.

Add to this that some of the rules are just darn poor and make you think, 'What was the designer thinking?'

<Right now I'm discussing with my players the 3/PF rules for Crafting for speed of production and ratio of materials to final product ~ I've got someone who figured out that gunsmithing in PF can allow him to produce a musket every 1.5 days which retails for 1500 gp>

If you want to cause your GM grief at low level in 3e/PF hire a coach to take them to the dungeon. 3cp per mile. 3sp for 10 miles. Don't need to worry on lost horses (not yours) and you can carry all your gear plus yourself for that low cost.

 

[Grazzt]

Rules are tools. It's up to the DM to decide how to use them, or in this case what options to offer.

The point is to give the DM a meaningful toolbox. Every set of rules limits what you can do. The particular set of rules on the market right now is extremely specific and doesn't allow the DM many stylistic choices. The design goal is to fix that.

However, if you, as a DM, want to play a specific style or have a specific concept of what's balanced, you can limit the available options. Part of writing around options is encouraging this kind of thinking-not taking what's in the books as dogma.

No amount of flexibility is going to fix everyone's complaints, and regardless of the rules, there will be some people whose tastes simply don't agree.

Yep. All of this, especially the limiting available options. If some race, class, whatever doesn't fit. It doesn't fit. DM can decide whether to try and make it fit, or just draw the line and say "no" (which I've done both and have no problems doing either)

 

[TerraDave]

They have been pretty explicit that DMs can limit player choices to fit the particular campaign.

They mentioned a "rarity" system for classes at D&DXP that would reinforce this...e.g. the assassin and psion may be rare classes, and the DM can just say no rares in his game.

 

[Ratskinner]

I don't think this is a problem, really. The Basic/Core game will include such things as Ability/Skill checks, Saves, Attacks, AC, Actions, maybe movement, and probably some non-spell abilities. Everything just has to relate back to those things to be inter-operable. So Player A having "at-will" magical abilities won't matter to Player B who doesn't want them for his character won't matter because they still work within Ability/Skill checks, Saves, Attacks, AC, Actions, maybe movement, and probably some non-spell abilities.

Additionally, I think we already know that the DM will be able to choose or deny some modules right out of the gate. Hopefully, he would do this with the consultation of the group, so no one will be stunned when he says "no psionics" or "no at-will feats" or "high-lethality rules are in effect."

 

[Minigiant]

I wouldn't worry on that.

There have always been more rules then people have used.

This has been true of the core rules, the auxiliary core rules, setting rules, and 3rd party produced materials.

Not everyone uses everything from the FR.

Not everyone uses encumbrance.

Not everyone uses time units to measure how long a torch provides light or when a group must rest to avoid taking minus to combat from fatigue.

Add to this that some of the rules are just darn poor and make you think, 'What was the designer thinking?'

I don't really consider those things major or essential aspects of the game. Some might though.

I'm just anticipating the issues between Alice who has a fighter with feats, Bob and his rogue with attack powers, and Chuck the DM who doesn't like feats and powers but was to use the Wound module the others don't care fore. It seems to me the point is to make everyone able to play but it looks like the DM will be the one making the most sacrifices. Since voting with your feet over this is against the point of D&DN/5e.

 

[Scribble]

I don't really consider those things major or essential aspects of the game. Some might though.

I'm just anticipating the issues between Alice who has a fighter with feats, Bob and his rogue with attack powers, and Chuck the DM who doesn't like feats and powers but was to use the Wound module the others don't care fore. It seems to me the point is to make everyone able to play but it looks like the DM will be the one making the most sacrifices. Since voting with your feet over this is against the point of D&DN/5e.

I think it's about giving groups the tools to make whatever they feel the best combination of rules is. It's not about one person getting everything and the others being told to suffer.

Will there be some rules that someone wants to use that no one else does? Probably. Will there be some rules in use that some people using them dislike? Probably.

Sometimes in order for the group as a whole to have the most fun, people compromise.

That's life.

 

[Anselyn]

I heard somewhere that one of the main goals of D&DN/5e is to allow gamers of the different edition random play together.

Yes. Gamers whose play style or expectations are defined by one edition - or who favour one particular edition - get to play together in a system that highlights core aspects of D&D.

That is all fine for the players. If I want to bike an AD&D style character, I simply do. If I want to create a 4th edition style character, I just build one.

This is not the same as bringing characters from those editions to one table and playing them simultaneously.

All those players might sit together and play Traveller or WFRP. We wouldn't find that surprising but we might different expectations of what rules should cover or offer.

The difference here is that they the new game they all play together has some definite D&Dness about it. It won't however be D&D:Babel-fish as far as I can tell.

 

[BluSponge]

So are DMs supposed to sit back a little more for the greater good?

You're the DM. You RUN the game. It's still up to you to set the parameters of the game. Just because you have the option to put everything into your game doesn't mean you have to do so. Selective editing to control the play experience has ALWAYS been the purview of the DM. This will be no different with 5e, no matter who tells you you are doing it wrong.

Tom