D&D (2024) I have the DMG. AMA!

[Greg K]

If you look at real world polytheism, the god only cares that they get their sacrifice with the correct rituals. So long as you do that they dish out their power. They don't care what you do with it or how you act. the idea that gods care about morality and codes of behaviour is imposing a Christian idea on other religions where it does not belong. I think the baseline for D&D should be that the vast majority of religions are not pseudo-Christianity, and the gods (at least 99.9% of them) do not care how you act.

Yes, performing rituals, correctly, are often important as is sometimes flattery, cajoling. Yet, there are examples in some polytheistic cultures of deities punishing their priest/priestess by transforming him or her into monsters and/or not answering their prayers. Sometimes, the punishment has been for disrespecting the deity (even slightly) and sometimes for transgressions that were not the fault of the priest/priestess, but still offended the deity.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Since I started playing in '87, this hasn't been an issue that's come up.

People, go play how you want to play (as long as you have buy-in from the rest of the group), stop expecting the game to cater to or validate you—because no matter your preference, the game rules are going to clash with your preference at some point (and this is nothing new to the current edition, because there's been some crap rules in the game since day one). So do what we've been doing the entire time and alter the game to suit you and your group.

Yeah, it does seem that certain posters here aren't posting their viewpoints in order to debate whether they are wrong or right, with the possibility that they can be persuaded to a differing point of view, but instead just want to have their points validated, which is far, far less persuadable, and just leads to endless rounds of posts going nowhere.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Yeah, it does seem that certain posters here aren't posting their viewpoints in order to debate whether they are wrong or right, with the possibility that they can be persuaded to a differing point of view, but instead just want to have their points validated, which is far, far less persuadable, and just leads to endless rounds of posts going nowhere.

Human psychology dictates this. It's literally why echo chambers exist. People love nothing more than opinion validation. That's why you see so much talk about "well the DMG supports my view," because it's a form of validation. It's why everyone, myself included, prefers when the DMG reflects their opinions.

It's also why these kinds of discussions mostly happen around 5e. 5e is the biggest fish in the pond, and it's not close. So it means a lot more that 5e match one's views than Blades in the Dark does, because 5e has more clout. It's more validating if 1000 people agree with you, than if 50 people do.

This isn't to comment on Blades in the Dark or any view point or person. Just expressing a thought on why brains are silly. And why your astute observation is likely inevitable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do both. If the players like the mechanics but not the narrative, we reskin. If the player likes the concept but not the mechanics, we'll modify the class, build a new class or subclass, or find a 3pp option that fits.

Fair enough. Reskinning doesn't work for me, but you do you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But we aren't allowed to have new classes anymore. Just a handful of subclasses ever few months.

I'm more a fan of letting classes be broad concepts that the player then customizes and flavors anyway.

Maybe god doesn't believe in me, but I believe in them SO HARD regardless of how badly I'm misinterpreting them.

Or --and cookie for anyone who gets the reference -- "Lord Zomelgustaar... is a god I made up."

Oh, you're assuming we're stuck with whatever WotC decides to publish. I see the problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not to me.

To me they're a prefab toolbox that start building my character concept off of.

That's not really how D&D has ever been designed, to be fair. Not even now.

 

[mamba]

You said fantasy worlds, not D&D.

this discussion is in a D&D thread, it was in the context of D&D, but agreed, it is true for other worlds as well that there are classes / professions that fall into a certain frame. You then turned that into a classless TTRPG, which does not really have anything to do with fantasy worlds themselves, and certainly nothing with D&D, it is just a possible representation

Those are archetypes not classes. The Knights of the Round Table, the Peers of Charlemagne, the Three Musketeers, etc didn't all have the same capabilities.

the classes are based on these archetypes, and two Fighters in D&D also do not need to have the same abilities, certainly not since 3e.

D&D is one representation of these archetypes, there certainly are other ways to model them as well

And don't get me started on wizards. In most stories, a wizard is born, not made or taught in the first place.

born with certain traits, they still can need training and do not necessarily come out of the womb shooting lightening already

And in the codifier, LotR, wizards are angels. As in direct servants of the gods. As in super-priests.

sure, but that is not universal, nor do I believe it is relevant to the discussion

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay, this has absolutely nothing to do with superheroes aside from attempting to invoke some negative feelings in certain people on the board.


Not all fantasy worlds have or need classes. Not all fantasy games have or need classes. What class were Frodo and Sam? What class was Conan (Nope, not that one; certainly not the one he inspired). In act, what classes were literally any characters in fantasy before D&D invented the idea of classes?

Both literature. Not a game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You can't miss what you didn't have. Who other than a few grognard DMs does it lead to a negative play experience for?

Not a fan in general of the, "these people don't matter because not enough folks agree with them, so who cares what they want" argument. Hobbies have minorities that have valid views.

 

[Scribe]

I do wonder if the desire to have some penalty mechanics in the game originates from a general dislike of having metagame discussions during a session?

I mean, I cannot speak for anyone else, but it's not complicated for me.

God, Cleric.
Oath, Paladin.
Patron, Warlock.

If those classes betray their respective source of empowerment then they should lose that power.

I find the complete lack of this dynamic completely flawed from a game, and story, point of view.