D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

I don’t know whether you disagree that your statement directly implies a lack of satisfaction or that a lack of satisfaction directly implies a level of dislike.

I appreciate your passionate interest in my mental states, but I think I know them better than you do.

Here is a post I made over 13 years ago:

I just want the rules of the game to match up with the thematic reality of what occurs in the fiction of the game.

Yes. This is what I want from a game: a game in which, if I play by the rules, the player experience will be that which the story elements of the game appeared to promise.

The first version of D&D I played that ever really came close to this was (AD&D) Oriental Adventures. 4e is the next version that has given me this.

From Tom Moldvay's Foreword to the Basic Rulebook (page B2, and dated 3 December 1980):

I was busy rescuing the captured maiden when the dragon showed up. Fifty feet of scaled terror glared down at us with smoldering red eyes. Tendrils of smoke drifted out from between fangs larger than daggers. The dragon blocked the only exit from the cave. . .

I unwrapped the sword which the mysterious cleric had given me. The sword was golden-tinted steel. Its hilt was set with a rainbow collection of precious gems. I shoulted my battle cry and charged.

My charge caught the dragon by surprise. Its titanic jaws snapped shut just inches from my face. I swung the golden sword with both arms. The swordblade bit into the dragon's neck and continued through to the other side. With an earth-shaking crash, the dragon dropped dead at my feet. The magic sword had saved my life and ended the reign of the dragon-tyrant. The countryside was freed and I could return as a hero.​

Those are classic fantasy tropes - the warrior as protagonist, the priest as mentor/guide, the dragon sorcerer as antagonist. This is what D&D promised to me in 1982, when I first got the Basic Set.

As I posted upthread, 4e was the version of D&D that actually gives me what I wanted from D&D when I first learned about it and played it.

Here's a thread I started on these boards less than 9 years ago: Played AD&D yesterday (using Appendix A for a random dungeon)

Since then, I have GMed at least two sessions of AD&D - one using X2 Castle Amber, and one using White Plume Mountain. (It's possible I'm forgetting one or two others.) I've also GMed one session of Moldvay Basic, using the Haunted Keep set out in ch 8 of the rulebook.

Now maybe you think I'm a self-hater or masochist, who spends time playing these games although I dislike them. But you're wrong.

 

[FrogReaver]

I appreciate your passionate interest in my mental states, but I think I know them better than you do.

I think the most accurate explanation is that I’m just talking about what you said.

But also, what you just did is classic deflection away from what you said and onto some accused personal characteristic of me.

Here is a post I made over 13 years ago:
As I posted upthread, 4e was the version of D&D that actually gives me what I wanted from D&D when I first learned about it and played it.

Here's a thread I started on these boards less than 9 years ago: Played AD&D yesterday (using Appendix A for a random dungeon)

Since then, I have GMed at least two sessions of AD&D - one using X2 Castle Amber, and one using White Plume Mountain. (It's possible I'm forgetting one or two others.) I've also GMed one session of Moldvay Basic, using the Haunted Keep set out in ch 8 of the rulebook.

Awesome! Though playing or running a game doesn’t necessarily mean you like it. It could be something nice you do for the enjoyment of others in your group.

Now maybe you think I'm a self-hater or masochist, who spends time playing these games although I dislike them. But you're wrong.

Glad to know that’s not the case. Not that there would be anything wrong with it

What I presume you are trying to say now is that despite your expressed dissatisfaction with the prior to 4e editions of d&d for not living up to their promises, that you nevertheless still enjoyed them and still do? Is that the jist of it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

IMHO there was almost nothing that changed between original D&D through AD&D 2e, they're fairly modest variants and updates of basically the same game. You could easily have rolled up a core LBB PC and be playing it in 2e with the very same spells, class, race, etc. Your AC would be, possibly, a point different, your ability bonuses would be bigger, your hit die may have increased a notch in size, but MANY of our characters were carried through all those games unchanged in other respects (there are some differences in saves between D&D and AD&D).

3e is a much bigger mechanical set of changes, switching the game over to a universal d20 mechanic and turning a vast plethora of special abilities into skill checks using said d20. This is a fundamental change from an ad-hoc "pick up any old dice and toss 'em" design where everything in the game has a unique subsystem to d20.

4e and 5e are just tweaks on that universal d20 engine. Everything is still a skill and all 'tests' are using that one die. All modifiers are codified, as are conditions and such. 4e further unifies things with the AEDU/Ritual/Practice system a little bit, but the change is overstated. I mean, seriously, show me a 3.5e fighter that doesn't have feats and items, maybe Prestige Classes, that give them all sorts of crazy abilities. That's assuming they didn't dip into other classes! Replacing that with powers was NOT a big deal.

Well, it certainly looked like a big deal. And for the 4e fans I heard from on this very site, you's think it was some kind of answer to their tabletop prayers, so I'm not sure that describing 4e's changes as "not a big deal" can be universally applied here the way you are doing it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So?

So your claim is in their estimation wrong (and in my estimation mischaracterized as objective fact), and they wanted to disagree in writing?

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, it certainly looked like a big deal. And for the 4e fans I heard from on this very site, you's think it was some kind if answer to their tabletop prayers, so I'm not sure that describing 4e's changes as "not a big deal" can be universally applied here the way you are doing it.

Yea. The consistent framing of the changes as big when praising it and not a big deal when answering criticism is certainly odd to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Huh? The post you're quoting doesn't say. or imply, that I dislike all previous versions of D&D.

But clearly none of them fulfilled the "promise of D&D" in your estimation, so you by definition must have been at least disappointed in all your D&D play prior to its release.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yea. The consistent framing of the changes as big when praising it and not a big deal when answering criticism is certainly odd to me.

Makes sense in some ways. Nobody wants to emphasize issues they don't have in things they enjoy, even if those are real issues for others.

 

[AnotherGuy]

For #1, what I didn't understand was that the character was in a ditch, failed a perception check to notice a trap and were lucky that it only damaged their shoe. The failed perception check caused the character to not notice a trap the effect was that the trap was triggered. Cause and effect clearly linked.

Hey I should clarify, the PC was not looking for a trap. Along the journey I asked the PCs what they would be doing as they had just left Mirabar (city in FR) going northwards. I narrated that there was a lot of traffic along the road coming to and from and that they could engage with the folk or rather pay attention to the surroundings. To be honest I had nothing prepped and this was just colour and one of the players was playing for their first time ever - it was an introductory session for him. Anyway the newbie opted that his character would rather focus beyond the road while the more experienced player opted to engage with the passersby.
So Perception check for the one - with the idea that he'd find a cool trinket or stray dog with the possibility of befriending it, while the other player rolled for Persuasion check with similar soft rewards.

Anyways the new player rolled poorly, but I did a Fail Forward (something I run when I have nothing prepped), his character found an interesting trinket but on his way back to the path the ditch and the close shave with the trap damaged his boot.
This may have actually been his first ever D&D roll, I cannot remember.

EDIT: Like I said this was just low stakes travel filler until they got 2-3 days away from the Mirabar.

 

[zakael19]

Of course, "metagaming" is often in the eye of the beholder.

I'm simply not old enough to know about any of the early days of the hobby, but I definitely see this coming up the most as a complaint with regards to modules these days. Eg: grumpy posts on r/DMA about "my player read the module and is now complaining that Im not running it as written / knows where every secret door is / killed some NPC / etc." I believe @hawkeyefan has repeatedly noted this isn't metagaming, it's really just "cheating" as in breaking the social contract.

The 5e.24 DMG suggests that metagaming is something akin to "acting on knowledge your character could not reasonably have" but figuring that out is going to be wildly different based on table. Obviously the more fictional your game mechanics are, the more they tie directly to character actions.

 

[AlViking]

Hey I should clarify, the PC was not looking for a trap. Along the journey I asked the PCs what they would be doing as they had just left Mirabar (city in FR) going northwards. I narrated that there was a lot of traffic along the road coming to and from and that they could engage with the folk or rather pay attention to the surroundings. To be honest I had nothing prepped and this was just colour and one of the players was playing for their first time ever - it was an introductory session for him. Anyway the newbie opted that his character would rather focus beyond the road while the more experienced player opted to engage with the passersby.
So Perception check for the one - with the idea that he'd find a cool trinket or stray dog with the possibility of befriending it, while the other player rolled for Persuasion check with similar soft rewards.

Anyways the new player rolled poorly, but I did a Fail Forward, his character found an interesting trinket but on his way back to the path the ditch and the close shave with the trap damaged his boot.
This may have actually been his first ever D&D roll, I cannot remember.

EDIT: Like I said this was just low stakes travel filler until they got 2-3 days away from the Mirabar.

Then I take back that it was logical cause and effect.

I think failure on a check is bad enough (especially when bad things should happen because of the failure), I don't need to pile on. In some sessions we wouldn't be doing much of anything other than dealing with the consequences of failure, in others it wouldn't come up once. I don't want people hesitating to do things that they know will require the roll of a die if they know it's going to lead to a consequence every time they fail. I want them poking and prodding the world, seeing what they can shake loose even if it doesn't always work.

Do I need to include a standard disclaimer? This is only for me, only my preference, only for the D&D game I happen to play and run and is not a reflection on other systems or other peoples preferences, yada, yada, yada.