D&D General My "Perfect D&D" Would Include...

[Tonguez]

Adding things that the DM is expected to remove is bad game design for the DM/player relationship. It creates a dynamic where the DM is "mean" if he takes away something that a player wants. It's much better, IMNSHO, for the base options to be minimal, and let the DM be benevolent by allowing extra options beyond the norm. This helps set the expectations better for both sides.

So go Human only and everything else is a bonus?

 

[Matt Thomason]

I think the only issue I have with this is that I can mark things as yes or no - there's some that just don't matter to me either way, and I feel bad that by not checking them I'm saying I don't want them!

Still, what I do want essentially comes down to copying BECMI (right up to the I), but with races not being their own class, and the addition of multiclassing and advantage/disadvantage rules.

If I wanted to add something not listed, it would be to lose XP altogether in favor of milestone levelling.

 

[Pedantic]

I really, really don't want that, because as DM I want to make adjustments for contexts. Some locks are harder than others. And (speaking as a long time climber) some walls are definitely harder to climb. There's a whole rating system. It's quite detailed!

That's fine, as long as you write it down ahead of time, and no one ever talks about a "level 15 wall" or tells me this wall is made of dreamsteel so you can't climb it, or worse, looks at the DC table for level 16 characters, finds the "Medium" and then gives me a 65% chance of success on my climb check. Characters should get meaningfully better at things, and the rules of getting better should be laid out before they come up at the table, so that players can use them. Being able to climb all the things, or unlock anything that's locked, or always tumble past my foes should be part of the game, and should be an expected growth of player power, and players should be encouraged to use their abilities to overcome obstacles.

I don't want creative plans that make the DM pause, assigns a level appropriate DC to and then lets you roll for. I want creative plans that involve finding a way to use my ridiculous spider legs and climbing prowess to tackle a problem from a more climbing intensive angle.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Adding things that the DM is expected to remove is bad game design for the DM/player relationship. It creates a dynamic where the DM is "mean" if he takes away something that a player wants. It's much better, IMNSHO, for the base options to be minimal, and let the DM be benevolent by allowing extra options beyond the norm. This helps set the expectations better for both sides.

I'd write the rules to calmly and rationally explain to DMs not to remove things and to le players play what they want because the game is everyone's not just theirs. I mean, do what you want as a group, but the game expects everyone to get to have fun without getting in each others' way. That'd be my perfect D&D; one that doesn't have the current unpleasant power dynamic.

 

[Reynard]

I'd write the rules to calmly and rationally explain to DMs not to remove things and to le players play what they want because the game is everyone's not just theirs. I mean, do what you want as a group, but the game expects everyone to get to have fun without getting in each others' way. That'd be my perfect D&D; one that doesn't have the current unpleasant power dynamic.

But it also puts the vast majority of the worldbuilding work on the GM's shoulders, and part of worldbuilding is deciding what exists in the world. Now, I think a good GM will listen to their players and see if the weirdo race the player wants fits in the world somewhere, even if it is a rarity, but I also think it is okay for the GM to say "No."

 

[Matt Thomason]

I don't want creative plans that make the DM pause, assigns a level appropriate DC to and then lets you roll for. I want creative plans that involve finding a way to use my ridiculous spider legs and climbing prowess to tackle a problem from a more climbing intensive angle.

On that subject, I also want rules that allow me a way to have those rediculous spider legs in the first place without everyone sitting around for three hours debating whether it's even possible with this ruleset and how to actually make it work. Just give me some nice easy way that allows me to trade off something I have to get something I don't and give it some kind of roll or bonus against some kind of skill or attribute without having to choose one of the 20 allowed and defined options that can be used in this instance.

Or, as I like to put it sometimes... please keep the rules out of my way as much as possible rather than defining more and more ways to force me to stick within them.

 

[Clint_L]

That's fine, as long as you write it down ahead of time, and no one ever talks about a "level 15 wall" or tells me this wall is made of dreamsteel so you can't climb it, or worse, looks at the DC table for level 16 characters, finds the "Medium" and then gives me a 65% chance of success on my climb check. Characters should get meaningfully better at things, and the rules of getting better should be laid out before they come up at the table, so that players can use them. Being able to climb all the things, or unlock anything that's locked, or always tumble past my foes should be part of the game, and should be an expected growth of player power, and players should be encouraged to use their abilities to overcome obstacles.

I don't want creative plans that make the DM pause, assigns a level appropriate DC to and then lets you roll for. I want creative plans that involve finding a way to use my ridiculous spider legs and climbing prowess to tackle a problem from a more climbing intensive angle.

You are aptly named.

 

[Clint_L]

DC 5 for a knotted rope and DC 20 for a cliff face are benchmarks. That's what "benchmark" means. Knowing what the system expects as far as difficulty is an important tool for the GM in adjudicating difficulties. "East" and "hard" lead the GM toward relativistic DCs, instead of objective ones. The same climb shouldn't be just as hard for a 1st level thief as a 13th level one just because the GM wants it to be "hard." At that point why are we leveling at all?

Story first, thanks. Characters have to face challenges or it's not fun. So why would I give them the same climb on a level 13 character? Should I also have them fight kobolds? Of course levelling is a treadmill, as far as difficulty goes - it's supposed to be. But other things comes with levelling, such as new options for solving problems. The problems still have to be just as challenging, relative to level. Relativistic is a good thing.

However, if players want to imagine going and face rolling through "Lost Mine of Phandelver" on their level 13 characters, have at it! Just not how I want to spend my evenings.

 

[Lanefan]

Edit: some surprises on the list thus far. I thought alignment would be more popular. I didn't think advantage/disadvantage would get so much support; I thought it was more controversial.

In and of itself adv-disadv is a very good mechanic, which explains it getting lots of votes.

Overusing it to the point of absurdity, as 5e does and in place of other better mechanics, is what makes it controversial.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But it also puts the vast majority of the worldbuilding work on the GM's shoulders, and part of worldbuilding is deciding what exists in the world. Now, I think a good GM will listen to their players and see if the weirdo race the player wants fits in the world somewhere, even if it is a rarity, but I also think it is okay for the GM to say "No."

The perfect D&D would teach improv and also that not everything a player character is has to be built into the world in the first place. One-offs are A-OK.