D&D 5E In fact, INSERT RULES HERE was a key part of the 3rd edition, and it means 5th edition is still missing full support for this previous edition.

[thanson02]

This brings up a very interesting phenomenon: There is a difference between placing a rule in a core book, a supplement, a thirdparty supplement, a UA article, and a house rule document. When we say, "5E doesn't need more rules," I assume we are mostly talking about the core rules. I mean, nobody can stop rules from appearing in house rules documents, and thirdparty supplements are hard to prevent too; but people don't give those rules as much weight, either. Official rules supplements are a kind of gray area, though.

For example, some people would say, "Just give people* the magic-item-pricing rules they want in a supplement, and I'll just not use that at my table." But other people would say, "No no no, if it's in an official supplement, players will expect it to be available as an option, and it will worm its way into all our games."

Personally, I feel that when people ask for more rules to exist in an official form (and not in a thirdparty supplement or UA article), it is precisely because they WANT those rules to become de-facto "core" rules -- which is precisely the thing that leads to rules bloat.[/SIZE]

I think there's another factor involved in here as well. There's a difference between more rules and expansions on the rules already. A lot of the stuff in the DMG provides in nice baseline framework to add additional mechanics to help manage player interactions with the storyline. I know other than wanting more player options, such as Psionics or the artificer class, there's been a request at least from players I've known to have some of these additional rulesets flushed out.

A good example of this was Out of the Abyss. You have the basic Madness rules in the DMG which you can use at your own leisure, but the fact that it was a focus and that adventure and its relations to the Demonic hordes invading the Underdark really flushed out what you can do with that particular mechanic. I found that really enjoyable with that module and I would like to see Wizards of the Coast continue to do that as they release more Adventures.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

 

[GameOgre]

I never really understood why it would mater to you if 5e does get the rules that are missing from 3.5 or indeed from any Xe?

Go ask the thousands of Pathfinder players and DM's why they left Pathfinder or are suffering under the Pathfinder bloat.

The Truth is your right and wrong at the same time.

If you just ignore the rules additions to a game then indeed those additions should not bother you.

However it would seem that ignoring rules and whole rule books for a game system is a lot harder that it appears.

Even in 5E at the games I go to the rules and options from the Realms book are being used even in settings not of the realms.

 

[Olive]

Even in 5E at the games I go to the rules and options from the Realms book are being used even in settings not of the realms.

I don't think that's evidence that DMs can't refuse rules, but that is evidence that they like those rules. I used FR rules, monsters etc in my 3.0/.5 home brew game when it wasn't the default setting!

 

[Jester David]

Like so much, it's a matter of moderation. Some new subclasses, spells, feats, magic items, races, and rules expansions are desirable... but content every other month. Or even every six months.
It's just tricky to stop. It's hard to say "yeah, that's enough" as the line is often only clear in retrospect.

Plus personal taste enters into it so much. Everyone has their own favourite elements from the past that they'd choose to include. There's a few common choices (psionics, defiling, the artificer) but then there's oddities that only a few people might like (incarnum, true namers, Spelljamming). Meanwhile, there's always people who hate certain elements.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Plus personal taste enters into it so much. Everyone has their own favourite elements from the past that they'd choose to include. There's a few common choices (psionics, defiling, the artificer) but then there's oddities that only a few people might like (incarnum, true namers, Spelljamming).

True. Which may produce some on-line friction...

Meanwhile, there's always people who hate certain elements.

Yeah, those people really need to show a modicum of respect for people who don't, and simply avoid the discussions of those elements, and not use them if/when they become available.

 

[Greg K]

It's particularly problematic with the modern editions - 3e & 4e - because they were player-focused ('player entitled' or 'empowering' depending upon how you want to spin it). 3e had the whole Cult of RAW thing going, and 4e was decidedly clear/balanced, and both were intricate - all discouraging rampand modding and off-the-cuff rulings 'Dis-empowering' (if we want to spin it that way) DMs.

I can't speak for 3.5 or 4e, but with regards to 3.0, I blame players and many of the DMs. The PHB had rule:0 telliing them to talk with the DM about changes and the sidebar telling players that DMs could even prohibit taking certain starting skills based on background. Meanwhile, the DMG told the DM that he or she was in charge of how the game was played at the table including which rules are used or changed, what supplements are included, etc... The DMG even included numerous variants to help DMs tailor their games. Hell, even early 3.5 Dragon issues had articles like the on by Andy Collins on prestige classes told DMs that, if they are going to allow prestige classes, to carefully consider allowing only those prestige classes that fit the campaign world or theme and gave guidelines to help in that consideration (note: he would take an alternative view in a web article much later in 3.5 when the official position from WOTC seemed changed, in my opinion, to allow whatever your player wants (I suppose this is good for book sales))

Now, I do wish that Jonathan Tweet's explanation of setting DCs and the skill system from an early 3.0 issue of the Dragon had been included in the DMG and many of the Skill DCs from the PHB had been moved into. Upon reading the article early on, I never felt beholden to the skill DCs in the PHB when DMing. I set skill DCs to what I felt was appropriate and, per the DM's best friend (DMG), based DCs upon how difficult on felt it would be under normal circumstances and then modified by the DC or roll to fit the current circumstances

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

So part of my feelings on this, is that 5e was sold to me as a unifying edition- meant to appeal to fans of all editions, and quite frankly, the core books walk the line pretty well considering the difficulty of that proposition.

But a big part of that, and one of the core designs of 5e, was a certain "modular, sliding scale of complexity" (as the legends and lore column suggested) where the inclusion of different rules expansions for a variety of sub systems could be used to calibrate the game to the group's individual tastes.

Now, the core books do have this design represented, feats and multiclassing, rest and healing variants, honor and sanity, DMG combat options (marking, tumble, flanking, etc.)

But i don't think 5e is really there yet- i use a LOT of homebrew material to give players the character option amounts they would prefer. At the end of the day, im not too worried, they more or less have to keep releasing content, so the edition will get there eventually.

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app

 

[MichaelSomething]

If you're looking for more stuff for your 5th game, why not subscribe to EnWorld's own EN5ider!
https://www.patreon.com/ensider