Obscure elements of D&D you would love to rescue

[KidSnide]

A big paragraph or two front and center of the DMG and PHB that says the DM can exclude anything he/she wants and add in anything she/he wants - whether from previous versions, magazines, the web, or stuff he just made up.

Of course followed by the 'DM consult your players' paragraph and social contract discussion.

Then present the 'rules' as guidelines.

I agree that it would be nice if the books included a couple paragraphs saying how D&DN is a toolbox, DMs and players should work together to decide what type of game they want to play and that you are never doing something wrong if you have fun. That's all good.

That said, I think it's a mistake to treat all the rules the same in this regard. A group could replace their d20s with 3d6 or decide to go classless, and -- if they are having fun and feel like they are still playing D&D -- more power to them. That's a legitimate use of the game, and who are we to judge?

But that's not the same thing as adjusting the obvious dials like, which races and classes are in the world, whether players need DM approval to make custom backgrounds and themes, and whether the game is using gritty or cinematic wound and healing rules. For that type of rule, I think WotC would be correct to provide a "default" version of the rules that they think is most friendly to new characters. However, at the same time, it would be helpful to note in the PH which rules are obvious dials so newer DMs know which parts of the game they can customize and newer players know when they should check with the DM.

-KS

 

[P1NBACK]

Yeah I do. Or more precise, I have a very changed set of houserules (a game of its on, really), and I allow my players to participate in creating the world if they want. Steeldragon has a thread regarding that, and it seems most DMs do it in one way or the other.

So, you don't use the D&D rules? Awesome. Doesn't mean we don't want them and makes your comment sort of superfluous doesn't it?

 

[Steely_Dan]

So, you don't use the D&D rules? Awesome. Doesn't mean we don't want them and makes your comment sort of superfluous doesn't it?

Totally dismissive and rude; he/she did not say they do not use D&D rules, just they may have some houes-rules, probably to make up for the shortcomings of every edition so far. (which are vast...vast...*in the voice of Leto*).

 

[P1NBACK]

Totally dismissive and rude; he/she did not say they do not use D&D rules, just they may have some houes-rules, probably to make up for the shortcomings of every edition so far. (which are vast...vast...*in the voice of Leto*).

Actually, he did. Read the original posts. Someone wanted some rules for politics, building strongholds, etc. Basically, character ownership rules in the game.

His response was, "You can do that right now. You don't need those rules."

Well, you also don't need rules for elves and fireballs. You can make that up right now. But, that doesn't mean we don't like seeing rules published for those things.

So, no, read the conversation in context instead of jumping in and being judgmental.

 

[Steely_Dan]

So, no, read the conversation in context instead of jumping in and being judgmental.

So, yes; hey, there's no judgement when someone's being overtly offensive, wouldn't you say?

 

[P1NBACK]

So, yes; hey, there's no judgement when someone's being overtly offensive, wouldn't you say?

Are you done?

 

[Steely_Dan]

Are you done?

With what?

Come on, I'm just trying to be reasonable here.

 

[Lwaxy]

So, you don't use the D&D rules? Awesome. Doesn't mean we don't want them and makes your comment sort of superfluous doesn't it?

.

Here, because you totally missed the point.

 

[P1NBACK]

.

Here, because you totally missed the point.

Ditto.

 

[Shoe]

spelljammer always seemed like a cool campaign setting that never came back. also, other OA books like Al-Quedam and maybe Indian adventures. It all depends on how the 5E system plays out