D&D 5E Labelling as much as possible "optional"

[Li Shenron]

"Everything you say can be used against you in court", IE, everything the game allows by default and happens to have some flaw will be used as derogatory against the edition as a whole.

It doesn't take much to prevent this, just a label that says "OPTIONAL" at the beginning of a paragraph or chapter. In the latest Q&A article, they just said that they are likely to label feats and multiclassing as optional. If you hate feats or multiclassing, you can't blame 5e for making room for them in the game, once they tell you it's your choice to use them (provided the game is designed to still work without them, of course).
Since the whole edition is supposed to be "inclusive", and that means also avoiding to have debatable features mandatory, why not at least trying to see what already is effectively optional, because the rest of the game material still holds without it?

So what else do you think can be labelled as "optional" without adjustments, or for which only very minor adjustments would be needed for them to be possibly optional?

Some stuff is easy to say it can be, and probably already is:

- dungeon adventuring rules and exploration tasks
- wilderness adventuring rules and exploration tasks
- interaction rules
- alignment
- magic items

Other parts that could be quite easily optional (some of which they'll never make optional tho):

- coup de grace
- readying actions
- death rolls
- short resting and HD-based healing rules

And some more controversial proposal (which also won't ever be optional):

- races

Well how do you make races optional, you ask? You can turn the current Humans (which are very generic) into a default placeholder race, so you demote the choice of race as purely cosmetic and remove some complexity without changing balance between players choosing this option and players picking race as usual.

...what else?

 

[fjw70]

Some classes (the ones outside of the classic four).

 

[Plaguescarred]

Things i could see labeled as optional could be;

- Races
- Classes
- Feats
- Ability Score Increases
- Exhaustion rules
- Background & Skills
- Exploration rules
- Alignment rules
- Morale rules
- Ideals, Flaws & Bonds
- Inspiration die
- Rest rules
- Dying rules
- Concentration rules

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And some more controversial proposal (which also won't ever be optional):

- races

Well how do you make races optional, you ask? You can turn the current Humans (which are very generic) into a default placeholder race, so you demote the choice of race as purely cosmetic and remove some complexity without changing balance between players choosing this option and players picking race as usual.

I would love that. Infact default all races are fluff but optional rules would rock...

Let me add weapon damage... Defualt is small weapons do d6 big do d8 and two handed d10 then just fluff... or optional all the weapons we know and love...

 

[delericho]

Let me add weapon damage... Defualt is small weapons do d6 big do d8 and two handed d10 then just fluff... or optional all the weapons we know and love...

I certainly think there's scope for introducing a "hand weapon" or "two-handed weapon" placeholder for players who don't really care to use. So, the Cleric gets given a hand weapon, which the player reskins as a mace, while the player of the Fighter (who does care about the minutae of weapon choice) gets to select from a much-expanded list full of specific weapons with lots of special rules.

(And if the player of the Cleric also cares about such minutae, then he too can use the 'full' list.)

 

[Sadras]

I would love that. In fact default all races are fluff but optional rules would rock...
Let me add weapon damage... Defualt is small weapons do d6 big do d8 and two handed d10 then just fluff... or optional all the weapons we know and love...

Hit Points that increase (optional). Just begin with a static base, modified only by Constitution, Toughness and Magic.

 

[Kinak]

For me as a consumer, it's mostly a matter of completeness and efficiency. As long as I can get a book with the all stuff I want and only a few options I'll ignore, I'm fine.

As a designer, though, "I could cut out this rule without hurting the game" translates to "time to cut out this rule."

Neither of those is to say that there shouldn't be a book full of rules that almost made the cut. I might even buy it. But, before I want any options, I want a clean copy of the default rules.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[am181d]

I believe that the three most commonly house ruled "official rules" from previous editions are:

1) encumbrance
2) experience points
3) alignments

 

[Li Shenron]

For me as a consumer, it's mostly a matter of completeness and efficiency. As long as I can get a book with the all stuff I want and only a few options I'll ignore, I'm fine.

As a designer, though, "I could cut out this rule without hurting the game" translates to "time to cut out this rule."

Neither of those is to say that there shouldn't be a book full of rules that almost made the cut. I might even buy it. But, before I want any options, I want a clean copy of the default rules.

Not sure what you mean...

But the 1st point of the thread, is identifying which of the current rules could be easily ignored by a gaming group, and therefore IMHO it would be a very good thing to explicitly label as "optional".

Why would it be good? Because this would emphasize that ignoring those rules has no consequences* on the rest of the rules.

Therefore, a group of beginners will most likely ignore everything labelled as "optional" for a while, thus starting off with really the smallest core. If there is stuff that works as optional but they don't label it clearly as optional, beginners will not immediately assume they can live without it, and will have a harder time!

Secondarily, strongly opinionated gamers (i.e. gamers who "I won't play a game that has rule X in it") won't be excused, if as many as "rule X" as possible default to "optional". (They might still not play 5e, but at least we won't hear them complain about rule X all the time on forums and such...)

*I note here, that when I say "no consequences" I don't mean that the game doesn't change... of course it changes, whether you use a certain option or not. I simply mean, that whether the players (or DM) of a gaming group decides to use that option or not, they don't need to change/adjust any other rule or character material, you can use everything else as written.

---

Point #2 of the thread was supposed to be "let's find out what other rules could become "optional, with no consequences if ignored" with a minimal adjustment".

 

[Kinak]

But the 1st point of the thread, is identifying which of the current rules could be easily ignored by a gaming group, and therefore IMHO it would be a very good thing to explicitly label as "optional".

This is the part I was commenting on.

I agree there are a lot of rules that could afford to be cut. I just prefer a less-cluttered presentation where the things outside the scope of a basic game are actually cut rather than being mixed in with the text of the basic game.

It may be a terminology thing, though. "Optional rules," to me, means things like the sidebars and proficiency chapter in 2nd Edition. If you're envisioning something more like Unearthed Arcana, where there's a separate book full of widgets to tune your game, I have absolutely no objections to that.

To put it another way, every rule in the main text (whether it's labeled as optional or not) adds work for me. More work, in many cases, because I'm being asked to extrapolate the rule's effects and decide whether to include it in the design.

So an optional rule has to carry at least the same amount of weight as a default one. And if the rule is that good, there's actually a decent chance it should be the default anyway.

Point #2 of the thread was supposed to be "let's find out what other rules could become "optional, with no consequences if ignored" with a minimal adjustment".

By all means, go ahead. Not that you need my permission

My personal preference to cutting rules instead of leaving them as optional bits nonwithstanding, I don't mean to stop the conversation.

Cheers!
Kinak