D&D General Ignoring the rules!

[GrimCo]

For anything other than a linear, plotted adventure path, this is my least favorite modern rule /culture change. First of all, why does the GM just get to decide when it is appropriate? Send, why can't I as a player choose my level of risk versus reward?

De gustibus non disputandum est. It works for my group and my prefered play style. And most of our campaigns are non linear, non plotted, sandbox-esque. There are frequent sessions where no dice are rolled, it's not uncommon to not have combat encounters for 4-5 session in a row, and when there is combat, it short and sweet. In that kind of play style, xp just doesn't make sense.

 

[Reynard]

So, lets back it up for a moment. You mentioned leveling shouldnt be in the GMs hands, but heres the thing, its always in the GMs hands. You are still putting the options in front of the players and they are making the decisions based on XP. Its really no different with milestone leveling in concept. However, with the mechanics under the hood, you can avoid decisions made based solely on mechanical benefit for the player's sake.

I don't think players playing a game making decisions based on the mechanics of that game is a bad thing, even in an RPG.

For example, I have had players avoid interesting adventures and quests because they were perceived to be either too hard or too easy and not worth doing based on XP alone. Not based on the particulars of what is happening in the setting and/or adventure. I dont want this kind of intrusion into the character play of my games. Which is why the characters understand power differences, but dont understand things like "level 7 wizard" because level mechanics are under the hood.

Are they? They understand "this wizard can cast 4th level spells" or "that fighter gets 2 attacks" just fine. i don't think the distinction is as "under the hood" as you are suggesting.

This allows a more organic play that develops based on character interest beyond getting money and attaining power.

Well, if we aren't talking about aiming for money and power, milestone levelling is fine. I started by saying that.

 

[Stormonu]

I've pulled the alignment spells and trinkets back into the game. Detect evil CAN detect someone of evil alignment (and reverse on Detect good/law/chaos), but they get a save to hide from detection and are aware of being pinged (things like fiends have disadvantage on the save). Using it on someone is like bluntly asking "are you a criminal?".

I don't really track alignment on PCs ("Unaligned" is a choice for them) unless someone really does something egregious ("You're Lawful Good but you're going to burn down the orphanage without getting everyone out first? I think we need to have a talk."). But if they choose an alignment there are items, spells and other effects that can affect them.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I've pulled the alignment spells and trinkets back into the game. Detect evil CAN detect someone of evil alignment (and reverse on Detect good/law/chaos), but they get a save to hide from detection and are aware of being pinged (things like fiends have disadvantage on the save). Using it on someone is like bluntly asking "are you a criminal?".

I don't really track alignment on PCs ("Unaligned" is a choice for them) unless someone really does something egregious ("You're Lawful Good but you're going to burn down the orphanage without getting everyone out first? I think we need to have a talk."). But if they choose an alignment there are items, spells and other effects that can affect them.

My reading of 3e was that to ping as an alignment, you had to have the magical energy of it. Outsiders obviously overflow with it, and divine casters definitely have some, divinely-powered magic items do, but non-magic users would need to be really egregious to have a detectable amount. A bandit isn't magically evil, but a serial killer is.

I haven't actually used that since I stopped playing 3e, but it's a totally workable and potentially interesting way to handle it.

 

[Lanefan]

Turns role playing into a min max decision game that moves from interesting development into inorganic caricature play. YMMV

How so?

If the players are only interested in levelling up, then maybe; but if instead they're interested in play and xp / levelling are seen more as a pleasant side effect, this argument makes no sense.

 

[Lanefan]

So, lets back it up for a moment. You mentioned leveling shouldnt be in the GMs hands, but heres the thing, its always in the GMs hands. You are still putting the options in front of the players and they are making the decisions based on XP. Its really no different with milestone leveling in concept. However, with the mechanics under the hood, you can avoid decisions made based solely on mechanical benefit for the player's sake.

The bolded doesn't agree with my own experience other than in a few isolated specific instances.

Also, ideally xp is given for an encounter no matter how said encouter is handled; thus the only decision that won't grant any xp is if they somehow completely decline to engage with the encounter e.g. by turning back or fleeing....and even then, fleeing might get a few xp if in fact it's the wisest course of action.

For example, I have had players avoid interesting adventures and quests because they were perceived to be either too hard or too easy and not worth doing based on XP alone. Not based on the particulars of what is happening in the setting and/or adventure. I dont want this kind of intrusion into the character play of my games. Which is why the characters understand power differences, but dont understand things like "level 7 wizard" because level mechanics are under the hood.

That's just it, though: in a game like mine where you have to train to level up, the characters very much would understand the basic concept of "how many times have you gone for training" and also probably "it's been a while since I trained, I'm probably close to needing a refresher".

And even in games that don't require training, the casters would easily be able to differentiate themselves in two-level gradients based on comparing the most powerful spells they can cast.

This allows a more organic play that develops based on character interest beyond getting money and attaining power.

And if the character interest is getting money and attaining power?

 

[Distracted DM]

I’m sure I’m not alone in ignoring carrying capacity/encumbrance

We always ignored encumbrance in-person... but it turns out it's waaay easier to track in online VTTs nowadays! Encumbrance makes dumping strength have more repercussions, too.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The bolded doesn't agree with my own experience other than in a few isolated specific instances.

Every DM has different experiences. That means every DM will be different. Therefore, they will then have different needs and play in different ways.

If you want a game where the rules make everyone conform to a specific style of play, there's always 4th Edition.

 

[payn]

And if the character interest is getting money and attaining power?

Still dont need XP.

Look we have been over this before. It doesn't make sense to you becasue you are incapable of understanding any play style philosophy other than the one you hold.

 

[cbwjm]

Every DM has different experiences. That means every DM will be different. Therefore, they will then have different needs and play in different ways.

If you want a game where the rules make everyone conform to a specific style of play, there's always 4th Edition.

There are earlier editions too, BX and, I think, 1e you gained XP for coin which leads to a fairly specific style of game since it's Bout getting the loot out of the dungeon. I think when they dropped that for 2e it changed the overall game style.