Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Drifter Bob" data-source="post: 1619123" data-attributes="member: 17723">The poll shows that something like 25% of hard core DnD fans (which I assume most of the regular posters to Enworld are) would like to see some kind of improvement to the maturity level of the game.I personally feel that a lot of the people who voted "I like it as it is", were seeing the poll in terms of a vindication of DnD as such, in precisely the defensive mode I described above.  The fact that many people who voted for "as is" rules described using house rules themselves reminds me of Gary Gygax using his own house rules while insisting that anyone else who did "wasn't playing dnd".With all due respect, the implication people in the reformist camp like Oourph and I need to rely on the rules as some sort of crutch strikes me as more defensive counterattacking.  That is certainly not my point - I don't need the rules to make my games easier.  Like most long-established DM's I use my own house rules and I think Ourph said he did as well.  Either way, the issue is more how the overall culture of the game is being effected, in terms of people one meets to play with, and how this all effects the various books and suppliments which are for sale.  As the author of one of those, I have a vested interest in this issue.Third, a lot of people have said that they want a game they don't have to feel embarassed about.  The fact that DnD IS intentionaly targeted toward a very young market, in spite of the fact that many players are much older (this poll seems to indicate that!) is itself an aberration.  This is reflected in both the flavor (and the art) and the rules mechanics themselves.Dealing with specifics, the Bluff issue is a good example.   I'm ambivalent about these discussoin skills.  On the one hand, I'm glad they introduced Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy and Sense Motive into the game, it was needed.  On the other hand, as implemented, I think it detracts from role playing and encourages a kind of computer game dynamic.  The bluff check is just a die roll.  What the player actually says does not affect it.  In my campaigns it's different.  I'll assign a +4 to -4 to any persuasion attempt any player makes, based on what they said, or the manner they said it in.  (Even a fairly brusque character can grunt convincingly)This would, IMO, be a good kind of a mechanic to introduce into the rules.  If they are going to be that specific, some mechanics shouldThat is the ultimate problem.  The rules have grown largely in reaction to rules lawyers nerfing loopholes.  It has been a kind of crisis management.  Therefore, the general trend of rule creep has grown largely to accomodate or deal with the rules lawyer, munchkin type players.  Ultimately, I think a scaled system makes sense, with basic on one end and complex at the other, and on the complex end, the more mature, role playing style should be considered as much as the roll playing munchkin style.DB</blockquote>

Verification