D&D 5E Is Neil Gaiman Wrong?

[Maxperson]

Dude, don't be like that. They are rules written in the official rule book that describe several different ways to expand or alter game play. They aren't house rules. Call them official options if you want, I guess, but denigrating them as 'houserules' in order to prove a rhetorical point is a little disingenuous IMO.

They're changes to the base game. My house rules are also changes to the base game. They are equivalent other than the those in the DMG are official. We can call mine House Options

 

[TwoSix]

Dude, don't be like that. They are rules written in the official rule book that describe several different ways to expand or alter game play. They aren't house rules. Call them official options if you want, I guess, but denigrating them as 'houserules' in order to prove a rhetorical point is a little disingenuous IMO.

Agreed there. RAW is useful as a reference point, but the number of games that are actually played under full RAW is vanishingly small. (Even AL DMs fudge fairly often.)

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If the dragon sleeps in a cave chemical weapons or poisonous gases can be thrown within, a poisoned bear stocks. Or to send sheeps with explosives.

 

[Fenris-77]

They're changes to the base game. My house rules are also changes to the base game. They are equivalent other than the those in the DMG are official. We can call mine House Options

No they aren't. Not that yours are bad or anything, but the official rules have the weight of being, well, official. Your house rules don't and that's really the key difference, not a throwaway notion. The 'base game' doesn't get special privileged over other parts of the rule books. In reality, there's no stable entity called the 'base game' that exists in the core rule books. Options are presented throughout, and the game rules are pretty specifically presented as a toolbox, not a monolith.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Absolutely. I house rule the heck out of my game. That doesn't make my house rules RAW or how the base game was intended to be played. You on the other hand have called people playing the base game as it was intended to be played, "Manifestly wrong." That makes YOU wrong. About the game anyway. The way you play is right for you of course.

If you look back, what I said was "manifestly wrong" was someone, like you, defining D&D for everyone else.

But I have since learned that while some debates are like lucern hammers, most are just like hammers- pointless. And this is a pointless debate. Anyone who is arguing with regard to the DMG rules is not worth playing attention to.

 

[TwoSix]

If you look back, what I said was "manifestly wrong" was someone, like you, defining D&D for everyone else.

But I have since learned that while some debates are like lucern hammers, most are just like hammers- pointless. And this is a pointless debate. Anyone who is arguing with regard to the DMG rules is not worth playing attention to.

You'll quickly learn that most long-term debates here are fundamentally about semantics, not actually about playing the game.

 

[Maxperson]

No they aren't. Not that yours are bad or anything, but the official rules have the weight of being, well, official. Your house rules don't and that's really the key difference, not a throwaway notion.

Um, dude. I said they are the same except that the ones in the DMG are OFFICIAL. That's exactly the same as saying, they are the same, except for the weight of the ones in the DMG.

I create House Options. The DMG gives Official Options. The one and ONLY difference, is officiality.

The 'base game' doesn't get special privileged over other parts of the rule books. In reality, there's no stable entity called the 'base game' that exists in the core rule books. Options are presented throughout, and the game rules are pretty specifically presented as a toolbox, not a monolith.

You're right. They call it default, not base. Same difference.

 

[Flamestrike]

FUN! I love a challenge. Let's see. I'm wrong, am I? RAW.

Okay, so if someone is playing intrigue or mystery or horror (DMG 38) then they are "simply wrong."

If they are playing with madness and sanity (DMG 252, 265) they are "simply wrong."

If you play with intelligent monsters that use skirmish, missile, and hit & run tactics then you are "simply wrong."

If your monsters focus fire on the players and will kill players that are down (instead of allowing whac-a-mole) then you are "simply wrong."

If you use slow, milestone leveling then you are "simply wrong."

If you combine slow natural healing and gritty realism (DMG 267) then you are simply wrong.

...or, if you play with injuries (DMG 272) or massive damage (273).


All of this before getting into house rules (some campaigns remove cantrips, or have rules for speed and spellcasting).

Yes, I guess I am simply wrong for not playing 5e in the way that you demand. I will give you your money back; I suggest you lodge a formal complaint with Crawford.

You can house rule away the Superheroic aspect of 5E for sure. You can cap spellcasting at like 2nd level, rule that falling or magma just kills you, remove all class features past 4th level or so, and do whatever the hell you want. You can implement all the gritty realism stuff you want in the form of houserules, alt rules, slow levelling, low magic and whatever.

By the same token, I could take a low magic/ gritty realism rules-set and plug in a ton of house rules to make it superheroic and gonzo.

The fact remains however, that 5E as written, is gonzo superheroic Avengers level OTT power levels from mid (11th) level onwards.

 

[Maxperson]

If you look back, what I said was "manifestly wrong" was someone, like you, defining D&D for everyone else.

I said you were manifestly wrong about the default rules of the game. Page 37 of the DMG proves that. I also said you can play it your way, which is not me defining how you have to play D&D.

 

[Flamestrike]

This debate? Really?

"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them. " p. 4

"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge." p. 4.

Or, heck, just all of Part 3. You know- Master of Rules.

I appreciate your view, but you are not master of the rules of this game, my game, or any game that you are not the DM of.

If this is not to your liking, I suggest playing a game that does not have a DM, or such explicit instructions.

What you're doing here is engaging in extreme postmodern sophistry.

Mate, I'm not saying you cant turn DnD into something totally different by ignoring, changing, adding or whatever rules you want into the game. You can add power armor, plasma guns, rule that any hit just kills you, remove hit points and AC, add in whatever you want etc.

At what stage are you not playing DnD anymore?

I'm not here to talk about your rules. I'm here to talk about the rules. And those rules are clear in intent and expressly worded abilities that PCs past mid levels are literal superheroes whose names and deeds shape and echo around the multiverse.