Optional vs. "Optional"

[SLOTHmaster]

When 2e first came out, there were no kits, all classes but fighter, mage, cleric, and thief were optional, and proficiencies were optional. But every source assumed you aren't limited to those four classes. Every source seemed to assume you were playing with proficiencies. And as soon as kits came into being, you had entire books essentially devoted to coming up with new kits.

Fast forward a few. Now we have 3e. Prestige classes were optional. Anyone checked the content of Complete Anything recently?

I'm not saying that I dislike prestiege classes or kits, I actually liked 2e's non-weapon proficiencies, and I certainly wouldn't try limiting PCs to four classes. But did any of those turn out to actually be optional? It seems to me that the moment you introduce a rule, it becomes part of the system. Perhaps because min-maxers see some way to break it. Perhaps the DM or a publisher thinks of a cool way to integrate it into the design. My point with all this being: modules. In 5e, will they really be optional?

 

[Sunseeker]

I think some will, and some won't. New classes, backgrounds and themes will likely be written as though they are default. New races will likely be optional. New spells and abilities will probably be written as default. Armor tables, morale rules and 5e's interpretation of THAC0 will likely come as optional.

Basically, anything that could reasonably have been printed in PHB1/DMG1/MM1 will be looked at as core even if it's in PHB75.

 

[Bobbum Man]

Try telling a player who has gotten a whiff of a cool new rules-toy that it is "optional", and you, as DM, are therefore exercising the option of not using it, and see how that works out.

Role-players, I'm sorry to say, are basically narcissistic man-children who throw tantrums when they don't get their way (yes...this includes me as well).

Therefore, any player-side mechanic that is listed as "optional" in the rules, tends to become mandatory in the practical sense.

I would personally love nothing more than to have a D&D edition free of all the 3e/4e character-build culture, but I know that will never, ever actually happen in real life.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Try telling a player who has gotten a whiff of a cool new rules-toy that it is "optional", and you, as DM, are therefore exercising the option of not using it, and see how that works out.

Role-players, I'm sorry to say, are basically narcissistic man-children who throw tantrums when they don't get their way (yes...this includes me as well).

Therefore, any player-side mechanic that is listed as "optional" in the rules, tends to become mandatory in the practical sense.

I would personally love nothing more than to have a D&D edition free of all the 3e/4e character-build culture, but I know that will never, ever actually happen in real life.

I hand those players the DM screen and tell them to have at it and sign me up to play.

 

[GX.Sigma]

When 2e first came out, there were no kits, all classes but fighter, mage, cleric, and thief were optional, and proficiencies were optional. But every source assumed you aren't limited to those four classes. Every source seemed to assume you were playing with proficiencies. And as soon as kits came into being, you had entire books essentially devoted to coming up with new kits.

Fast forward a few. Now we have 3e. Prestige classes were optional. Anyone checked the content of Complete Anything recently?

I'm not saying that I dislike prestiege classes or kits, I actually liked 2e's non-weapon proficiencies, and I certainly wouldn't try limiting PCs to four classes. But did any of those turn out to actually be optional? It seems to me that the moment you introduce a rule, it becomes part of the system. Perhaps because min-maxers see some way to break it. Perhaps the DM or a publisher thinks of a cool way to integrate it into the design. My point with all this being: modules. In 5e, will they really be optional?

If the core is "these four races and classes and literally nothing else", the entire core is contained within the core books. So obviously, anything else they publish is going to be the extra stuff that isn't that core. What content could they possibly add that isn't optional? I don't think I'm getting what you're trying to say here.

 

[wrightdjohn]

Everything and I mean everything beyond the initial three books has always been optional in my campaigns. This was true even in 4e though I admit things got accepted pretty easily.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I would personally love nothing more than to have a D&D edition free of all the 3e/4e character-build culture, but I know that will never, ever actually happen in real life.

That's what earlier editions are for? Would you like me to link to the dozens and dozens of retro-clones out there?

 

[Stormonu]

Try telling a player who has gotten a whiff of a cool new rules-toy that it is "optional", and you, as DM, are therefore exercising the option of not using it, and see how that works out.

I've been saying "no" to things since 1E and have had relatively little problem, even in 3E's glory days. Heck, back in 2E I REFUSED to use anything out of the Player's Option books, even though I had bought them. Players don't like it, they can go run their own game and allow what they want. So far, no one's gone that route.

Up until recently though, I've been one who liked to throw in a lot of optional stuff anyways. It's only been in the past couple of years (about the time of the PHB2 in 3E) that I started considering "core only" games.

 

[mkill]

I don't understand this fetish with "core", "optional", "rarity" etc. To quote (well, paraphrase) modern game philosopher Zak S., "Life is to short to care about PCs, your jaguar man is in".

Say, you have a 5th level 3E party. That's a total of 5 races, maybe 10 classes, ca. 15 feats, maybe two dozen spells, and a dozen magic items. That's all I need to care about as DM. Nobody wants to play a dwarf? Looks like dwarf is "optional" this time.

As DM, I can create and destroy entire planes of existence on a whim. I have absolute power over the game. Sure, I could waste my time making lists of which race, class and so on is "rare", "optional" and what not, but it's an evening I can spend in preparing the session, designing NPCs, making handouts... activities that enhance the game, instead of just asserting my control of the game that I have anyway because I'm the DM.

It's the players' game too. Let them shape their PCs like they want.

 

[Bobbum Man]

I don't understand this fetish with "core", "optional", "rarity" etc. To quote (well, paraphrase) modern game philosopher Zak S., "Life is to short to care about PCs, your jaguar man is in".

It's the players' game too. Let them shape their PCs like they want.

I would be inclined to agree with that sentiment, however I am a petty man and I cannot abide stupid character concepts.