D&D 5E I don’t really care what rules the players use.

[ezo]

I think it is rather that the first expansion usually improves a game, as there are often crucial fixes to some problems that arise in the base game. After that it often gets worse again for your stated reasons.

Right, and XGtE did that. Going beyond introduced power creeep and such.

I think it is different with the 2024 version though, as it is a reset, rather than an expansion. I think there is a good chance that the game is in a solid state. And probably after that it gets worse again.

From what I have seen, I don't think so. While 2024 is supposed to be fully backward-compatible, which it might be technically, but changes that are already there are not fixing actual issues, but more power creep IMO.

 

[TwoSix]

I've seen the term Neotrad tossed around, but I don't really know its definition- based on context a neotrad game is one where PCs will win, and challenge isn't that important?

No one really agrees on exact definitions; my definition of neotrad is a game where the focus on being able to make a diversity of characters and then show off their abilities through roleplaying or combat.

This isn’t a criticism, I don’t think most of us are actually doing TTRPG for the “challenge”. Combats are fun set pieces that let demonstrate your character’s abilities with the illusion of challenge.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I agree with the thread premise wholeheartedly.

What matters are the ideas the players come up with to solve problems presented to them by the DM. What numbers we use to determine the success of those ideas is secondary.

 

[Reynard]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but this sounds very similar to the school of thought that says "I don't track the HP of the BBEG, he falls when it's appropriate for the battle to end."

I'm not sure I see the connection. Can you elaborate as to how you think what I wrote in the OP means what you suggested?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

What matters are the ideas the players come up with to solve problems presented to them by the DM. What numbers we use to determine the success of those ideas is secondary.

In theory and in practice I agree with this sentiment. Thanks for stating is so succinctly!

Rules matter to me. A lot. I'm happy for the folks that style works for, but I need crunch in my game and I need it to matter to the story.

I also believe in this sentiment to some extent (though I don't think opening up PC options is necessarily limiting crunch). Rather than "anything goes" for player PC choices, I prefer a game where there is a set of options to choose from. If we want to open that universe of options up a bit, that is certainly up for discussion in session 0. But, in order to carry out one of my DM roles as referee, I find it helpful to "limit" the options* - I only have so much bandwidth for player facing rules and want to be able to quickly advise on the rules when it comes to PC spells and abilities, as necessary. To be clear, this has zero to do with trusting my players - trust is a given at our table - it has to do with some players (both new players and experienced ones) not having a solid grasp of how some spells and abilities work.


* as an example, our current campaign in Wildemount allows any class/subclass options published by WotC. It has a Wildemount overlay for races/species and has an overlay for backgrounds that was expanded to also include other choices that seemed to fit with the campaign theme. I mean, it hardly feels like a limitation - there are tons of creative combinations available.

 

[Reynard]

We have drifted a bit into focusing on additional material. That's relevant, certainly, but not really what I meant in my OP. I mean that the particulars of one set of compatible player facing rules versus another doesn't really concern me as GM, specifically in the form of choosing races and classes between 2014, 2024, A5E or ToV or whatever other explicitly 5E core PHBs emerge.

 

[DEFCON 1]

We have drifted a bit into focusing on additional material. That's relevant, certainly, but not really what I meant in my OP. I mean that the particulars of one set of compatible player facing rules versus another doesn't really concern me as GM, specifically in the form of choosing races and classes between 2014, 2024, A5E or ToV or whatever other explicitly 5E core PHBs emerge.

I happen to think it becomes a very freeing space as a DM when I can just run the stuff on my side of the screen and not care for a moment what the players do on their side. If someone decides to use a 5E14 class versus a 5E24 class and I wasn't even informed about it beforehand and I don't even notice it... so much the better. And if something a player does is not something I recognize at the top... if I ask them "What does that do?" and they tell me what it is and it seems completely reasonable, I'm not going to concern myself where that information came from. Heck, they could make up something right then and there that "mechanically justified" the idea and action they wished to take, and if it sounded plausible, then I'm going to take them at face value.

It's the same thing about me not caring if the players "cheat" or not. If they as a group all decide they want to "cheat" to accomplish their goals, okay, that's fine by me. I am unconcerned if they accomplish their goals or not, so if doing so matters that much to them that they all agree to work together to accomplish them even by bending or breaking some rules... hey, that's their choice! I'm not their enemy as the DM. I'm not trying to "win" and thus have no reason to get upset that the players aren't playing the "game" fairly. They can play the game however they most enjoy and I'll just react to them as I always would.

The only time when either of these things would cause an issue would be when one or more of the players were uncomfortable or got upset that another player(s) were using oddball material that appeared to give them obvious edges over the other players... or were deliberately cheating just to make their character "better than everybody else". Because that's no longer about the characters and how they are in the game world... that's about one player feeling a need to massage their own ego by being on top and looking down on the other players. And that kind of silliness I have no time for-- D&D isn't a competition, so don't bring that inferiority complex of yours to the table and try to work through by acting superior to everyone else. Be a part of the group. You want to feel better about yourself and the job you do at the table? Be a equal partner to the other players so you can all succeed in your story goals as a team. No one's impressed that you have this uber-character build... they are more impressed when you are a comfortable and comforting part of the group.

 

[billd91]

My main rule about supplementary materials for games I run is that I have to have access to the source before I'll allow it. That's for MY understanding as the GM who's supposed to be engaged in adjudicating things at game time. If it's something taken from some obscure source that a player read somewhere, it's not happening. If it's a 3rd party source that you have as a player, bring it to the table when we play so I can see it when questions come up.

 

[grimmgoose]

As someone who runs two six-person tables who are both currently at high-level - I care. If only for my sanity and fun at the table. At session zero, I explain what sources the players can pull from, and what classes/subclasses/spells/features I ban. I explain why, and they get it.

My tables vary in play styles and player strength, and I'm not interested in having one player who spends all of their time on Reddit finding the most broken builds running roughshod over my coworker who just wants to play a Champion Fighter - so I just nip it in the bud.

 

[Reynard]

My tables vary in play styles and player strength, and I'm not interested in having one player who spends all of their time on Reddit finding the most broken builds running roughshod over my coworker who just wants to play a Champion Fighter - so I just nip it in the bud.

That's a different issue, though. You can find broken builds for Core 2014 PCs. If a player brings a broken, unfair, bad faith character to the table I am still not concerned with they used the A5E or 2014 paladin to do it.