D&D General How has D&D changed over the decades?

[Thomas Shey]

Agreed on the almost. I suspect words like sesquipedalian are never really useful, regardless of context. English is littered with big words that seem to have been coined solely to be big words.

They can be useful in a signalling sort of way in some contexts, but I don't think they're really necessary in many.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think some issues with 1e are that, using your analogy, most initiative screws bolts use a d6, but there are some needing a d8, and others still need a d100. The GM is forced to figure out how a d6 bolt works with a d8 nut when matched with a d100 bit.

The fiction of any given situation can be complicated in ways not always easy to map to a specific mechanic. Those areas that allowed room for gm interpretation in prior editions served that impossibly varied set of circumstances well. Serving that well doesn't mean that it was without faults, but there are also serious flaws in the modern approach of leaving huge swaths of things to the GM while rules surrounding that GM call grey area are often dialed to 11 & beyond so that the GM is almost guaranteed to be nerfing some player if the GM ever makes a call other than "ok sure".

 

[Hussar]

@tetrasodium. You don’t think that might be a touch hyperbolic?

 

[Lanefan]

I think some issues with 1e are that, using your analogy, most initiative screws bolts use a d6, but there are some needing a d8, and others still need a d100. The GM is forced to figure out how a d6 bolt works with a d8 nut when matched with a d100 bit.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's perfect. 1e initiative as written is a nightmare!

What I am trying to say is that in principle ther's nothing wrong with bespoke mechanics for specific things.

 

[tetrasodium]

@tetrasodium. You don’t think that might be a touch hyperbolic?

no not really, I admitted there were faults in the old way of things & that those faults went along with strengths. Are you suggesting that modern d&d's "rulings not rules" mantra is without the fault of often being paired with areas of the rules stacked in favor of players in ways that don't disempower the gm if the GM doesn't start with nerfs to provide mechanical headroom?

 

[Fifth Element]

Pretty sure we were talking about communication in the context of clearly getting information across...

Considering that I was the one who first brought up communication, I'm comfortable saying no here.

 

[Willie the Duck]

That's a lot of throwing shade on something a person just said they were proud of. Is that really necessary?

You know what, probably not. I'd forgotten how the tangent started, and was barreling full steam down the topic of the dangers of precocious teenagers trying over-hard to be superior. The person I was calling on in that regard was my own teenage self and the people I hung out with, not anyone else in the thread.

 

[Hussar]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's perfect. 1e initiative as written is a nightmare!

What I am trying to say is that in principle ther's nothing wrong with bespoke mechanics for specific things.

I’m going to disagree here. Bespoke mechanics by their nature are more specific. They do what they do very well but don’t extrapolate very well. And of course as the system expands, bespoke mechanics become harder and harder to get to work with other mechanics.

Thus initiative.

But then you have things like thieves skills which use percentiles. But finding secret doors uses d6. So which system should I use to find a secret bottom in a chest? What if that false bottom is part of a trap?

Can an elf find the false bottom of a chest that’s the trigger for a trap? What die roll do I use?

Okay maybe that’s a bad example because you could treat them as separate - the trap and the false bottom. But the point is, the more bespoke mechanics you have the greater the complexity of the system.

And inevitably you wind up with diminishing returns.

 

[Hussar]

no not really, I admitted there were faults in the old way of things & that those faults went along with strengths. Are you suggesting that modern d&d's "rulings not rules" mantra is without the fault of often being paired with areas of the rules stacked in favor of players in ways that don't disempower the gm if the GM doesn't start with nerfs to provide mechanical headroom?

Yes. I am absolutely suggesting that.

I think. Sorry reading that a few times, it’s not the easiest to parse what you are saying.

But no. I do not think that dms making rulings in any way leads to nerfing anything. Nor is it needed.

But then you have repeatedly stated that you play with laser focused power gamers, so maybe the issue is just more pronounced for you than for me.

 

[pemerton]

"Bespoke mechanics" covers a lot of terrain.

Every move in a PbtA game is a bespoke mechanic. They are what drive those games.

The Classic Traveller rules for vacc suit use and the risk of complications are a bespoke mechanic. And they're great - they generate tension at the table and make the players feel the risk of losing protection from cold (or sometimes heat) and airlessness.

Every weapon in Rolemaster has its own table. This is part of the point of RM - if you don't like that bespokeness, RM is probably not the game for you.

But rolling d20 sometimes and d% sometimes, and resolving stealth sometimes by reference to consequence (eg the ranger's surprise bonus) and sometimes by reference to task (eg the thief's ability to move silently) doesn't look like powerful bespoke mechanics delivering a compelling play experience. It looks like careless design almost guaranteed to create headaches in play.