D&D General How am I a D&D outlier? How are you one?

[Dannyalcatraz]

My favorite genre is Supers

Ditto that.

But while I might enjoy high fantasy, fantasy superheroes is not my usual go-to for the genre.

 

[el-remmen]

I guess I am also an outlier in that I kinda like swinginess.

 

[el-remmen]

I think of mechanical balance as a general neighborhood to aim for and not some kind of granular precision that can ever be achieved. Some restrictions or benefits (like slower speed or darkvision) are more about shifting the tactics between individuals and developing a group approach.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

Um, well is the idea that game balance is a lot more loosey-goosey than some people seem to think that is what you don't get, or the idea that differences between character types don't need to be balanced against each other (or even be a benefit) to provide an interesting aspect to the game? For example, smallfolk move slower than anyone else? Well, that is just something to work out a way to account for in-game - it is just another problem to solve that also makes tactical combat more interesting as you work around obstacles. . .

 

[Asisreo]

When I add homebrew and houserules, it's only for the narrative. That means when I use Gritty Realism or Epic Heroism, I do it because it introduces a theme in the narrative rather than trying to balance characters/classes.

In fact, I've just (like, last year) finished running an adventure where the players can only restore hit points with magical healing or Hit Dice, so characters with low health can be hit pretty hard. They still recover half hit dice, but they obviously need to be more careful.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Ditto that.

But while I might enjoy high fantasy, fantasy superheroes is not my usual go-to for the genre.

I don't like fantasy superheroes as such... but the having high power characters doing good stuff works in either.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I guess I am also an outlier in that I kinda like swinginess.

I created a game that we played throughout the late 90's/early-oughts that was VERY swingy - a high chance to crit and fumble (far more than 5%), spell mishaps, friendly fire, etc. It was really fun and I don't remember anyone complaining (other than maybe that guy who'd just finished rolling up his first character and in the first round of the first combat, a bandit shot him in the eye with a crossbow and killed him stone dead). Just bad luck, I say!

Um, well is the idea that game balance is a lot more loosey-goosey than some people seem to think that is what you don't get, or the idea that differences between character types don't need to be balanced against each other (or even be a benefit) to provide an interesting aspect to the game? For example, smallfolk move slower than anyone else? Well, that is just something to work out a way to account for in-game - it is just another problem to solve that also makes tactical combat more interesting as you work around obstacles. . .

Same system, I played a character who had no abilities (roughly equivalent to D&D) higher than 13, while another player had most abilities above 13, including a 16 and a 17. (Though he also had a 5 agility (think dex).) These two characters were the best characters either of us have ever played (The one with no stats above 13? Yeah, that's Fitz The Ruke. The name I use here. That's how much I like that character.)

At any rate, my point is, you don't need to be exactly equivalent to everyone else to have a good character and play a fun game. "Balance" is overrated. (And this is coming from a DM who doesn't like optimization... at all.)

 

[MNblockhead]

A few examples:

1. I'm not happy with the way hit points work right now and how they increase over levels.
2. I prefer armor as damage reduction to armor as hit reduction.
3. Most special abilities built into class progression need to go, potentially to be replaced by a more low-key and flexible talent system
4. The skill system needs to be (a bit) more refined.
5. Archetypes and species that don't align with classic fantasy need to go.
6. (Pseudo-)Vancian magic needs to go/be replaced by something with a clearer in-world metaphor (potentially channeling/drain).
7. The swingyness of the d20 needs to be compensated, either by the skill system or by replacing it entirely (e.g. by 2d6)

I'll stop here - it's probably evident now why nobody should allow me to get too close to official D&D design

Gasp! (Clutched pearls) Stay away from my baby!

;-)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, honestly, my answers would mostly just add up to yucking other people's yum, since there are all kinds of thing in the D&D paradigm that aren't my gig. I'll occasionally play variations of it or run it if others prefer, but there's almost no design element of it that I particularly like these days, so I usually use other systems.

 

[pogre]

The couple of things that are outliers for my games -

I usually run D&D campaigns to 20th or very near 20th level. I enjoy all levels of play. I even run epics every once in a while so the players can roll out some retired PCs and whip some rear

I let players switch PCs if they want to. I want happy players - it is their narrative - I only have one player who does it semi-regularly.

 

[Azuresun]

I don't do a popular thing, and that makes me cool.