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

[Warpiglet-7]

I know you like hockey. It’s ok. But you are really not playing a good game unless you are using a volleyball and a net.

Why won’t you just string a net across the ice in the neutral zone. See, you should be able to score with the volleyball and the puck. You are unnecessarily limiting yourself. How do you know you like hockey this way?

Yeah I get that you changed where the goalie can handle the puck. I get that this is now called and those other changes. But you have not changed enough.

Your stubborn lack of accepting a volleyball means you don’t really appreciate what you have and you have limited your fun. Don’t you see?

Go back to bland hockey then. Enjoy that outdated slop. Unless you change it more you are not accepting of true fun.

What’s that you say? I can play volleyball and get what I want too without changing hockey? I can even make a game with a hockey puck and volleyball without restructuring hockey?

In the end some people want to play D&D as unsexy as it is. And they don’t want 4e level change but like to hew closer to what they have played before. It’s ok to have more than one game without hammering change into what is liked as is now, beyond a certain point.

The game has changed over time. I like many of the changes. But it is ok to have a “limit” at which point you are too far from what you genuinely like about a game in tone and rules and art.

Nobody has a right to squat. Buy or don’t. I came as far along as I could. Tonight I plan some 5e characters and open up some boxes of new minis. I am ok with other people doing their different thing tonight. But if I have a vote it’s not for a lot of what 2024 changed. And I think it is ok to say so without crapping on other people’s fun.

My conservatism should have no more bearing on someone’s fun any more than their taste need dissuade me from likening an 11 year old game.

 

[Lanefan]

Don't throw a lone Kobold at a high level party?

I did just this once, and it was the funniest thing ever.

9th-10th-ish level party are in a forest, on high alert for legitimate danger, and out from behind a tree steps a single Kobold that levels its little crossbow at the party and squeaks "Stand and deliver!".

Panic stations! One PC dives left for cover. Another dives right. A third flies into the air and goes invisible. A fourth starts a defensive spell. A couple of others hunker down in defensive postures. But nobody attacks the Kobold, who starts squeaking out demands like a true highwayman.

Wasn't long before the party realized the Kobold was hopelessly outgunned, but that initial reaction was priceless!

 

[Maxperson]

Fair enough. At least the AD&D one (which is what I cut my teeth on) doesn't suggest changing die rolls, or even having an attack not put the PC on the ground if it should.

1e DMG page 110.

"You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions."

 

[Maxperson]

Thing is, in older-edition D&D there's a whole pile of rules the players never see, and aren't expected to.

In theory, sure. In practice we all had the books and read them, and for those who didn't, they read the DMG and MM owned by someone else.

 

[Maxperson]

"Neutral abiter [who applies] those rules impartially" is what "fairness" means.

Where did you get the idea that fairness = "neutral" and "impartial?"

You can be partial in your ruling and be fair. You can apply something impartially and be unfair.

 

[Maxperson]

I did just this once, and it was the funniest thing ever.

9th-10th-ish level party are in a forest, on high alert for legitimate danger, and out from behind a tree steps a single Kobold that levels its little crossbow at the party and squeaks "Stand and deliver!".

Panic stations! One PC dives left for cover. Another dives right. A third flies into the air and goes invisible. A fourth starts a defensive spell. A couple of others hunker down in defensive postures. But nobody attacks the Kobold, who starts squeaking out demands like a true highwayman.

Wasn't long before the party realized the Kobold was hopelessly outgunned, but that initial reaction was priceless!

I was a player in a group of about 7 players in a 2e game and we were all 5th-8th level. A single 1st level cavalier bluffed us down because he had a lot of attitude and swagger. After the game is when the DM told us that he was 1st level and we all had a good laugh.

 

[Hussar]

Nobody has complained about adding a cook to the kitchen. It's the method described in this thread that doesn't work for traditional play. And we have repeatedly said that we have to add details to the setting, because the DM cannot do it all in advance. It's not possible.

Like I said, it's a distinction without meaning.

The DM is changing/adding/subtracting things from the setting. We're all doing it for the same reason - to make the game more interesting.

Claiming that one method "doesn't work" for traditional play while doing pretty much exactly the same thing, but only free form and without guidelines is not a terribly meaningful distinction.

Are you adding/changing/subtracting things from the setting during play? Yes? Then how you do that doesn't really matter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

1e DMG page 110.

"You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player character with your actions."

Fair enough. Not my philosophy though.

 

[Maxperson]

Like I said, it's a distinction without meaning.

The DM is changing/adding/subtracting things from the setting. We're all doing it for the same reason - to make the game more interesting.

Claiming that one method "doesn't work" for traditional play while doing pretty much exactly the same thing, but only free form and without guidelines is not a terribly meaningful distinction.

Are you adding/changing/subtracting things from the setting during play? Yes? Then how you do that doesn't really matter.

For a lot of people the HOW is every bit as or even more important than the event itself. For you it seems not to matter. For me it makes a big difference.

Making the cook's presence or lack of it part of an open locks roll is a how that I really dislike very strongly and would never do in my game. It ties the cook being present or being up in her bedroom(or wherever other than the kitchen) to how good a lockpicker the rogue is. If the rogue is really good, she is upstairs or somewhere else. If the rogue is bad or unlucky, well then she's in the kitchen.

Figuring out where the cook is by whatever method(and we do use methods as we posted way upthread), say in the kitchen, and having her there regardless of success or failure of a lockpick roll is fine. The would be thief is going to encounter her regardless of his skill level or success.

Those are two very different "hows" and that matters.

 

[nevin]

I am of the opinion that it is a harmful thing to negate the dice-determined result, and thus preserving that effect would not count in what I was speaking of. I

thank you for clarifying that so I don't have to argue with you anymore. I simply disagree with you. Good luck in your games.