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

[Hussar]

I just wouldn't draw too many conclusions about the mechanics of a particular game based on the official rules for most TTRPGs. Why compare them? Even with the exact same set of rules no two D&D games will be the same. A different GM and different players will influence the experience a lot more than the rulebook.

I've always been a big advocate that RPG's as written are not complete games. They are essentially game creation engines - more along the lines of something like the Unreal Engine or other video game design platforms (if that is the right term). The game that I play at my table will vary from a little a lot from the game @Lanefan or @AlViking or you play. Heck, the rules debate upthread about minions shows just how differently we will interpret the actual rules of the system, never minding additional rules, house rules, official rules, 3rd party rules, campaign rules, table rules and social contract rules at a given table.

Which means that when we discuss systems, we have to be very careful to be very clear about what is being discussed. I can talk about how exploration in 5e is fantastic now that I have imported the exploration rules from Ironsworn. But, that doesn't really help anyone else does it? It doesn't clarify the conversation. @Lanefan runs multi-year campaigns in a homebrew system that is only tangentially related to D&D. I don't think that's an unfair characterization. You'll see people talk about how lethal 1e is, whereas I totally disagree because, at my table, it wasn't. AD&D was D&D on easy mode AFAIC. Monsters with nearly no HP that deal negligible damage vs PC's that can easily rocket their AC's into the stratosphere.

That doesn't make me right and them wrong though. It's just that the games that each of us created using the RPG game creation engine that is D&D resulted in very different experiences.

So, yeah, while it's very true that home brewing and whatnot is part and parcel to gaming, it's also true that in order to have a conversation between groups, we have to differentiate between the game we create and the game creation engine. If I'm adding some ruleset to my D&D game, it's because either the ruleset I'm using doesn't have rules for that or I don't like the existing rules. Ship combat is a perfect example. There were no official ship to ship combat rules in D&D before Ghosts of Saltmarsh (I'm specifically talking about 5e). The GoS rules I didn't like very much, so, I used a different set. But, if we're going to discuss ship to ship combat in D&D, the only common language we likely have is the GoS rules. Me talking about tacking into the wind and generating wind direction and speed doesn't make any sense in the GoS rules.

If you're not going to draw conclusions about the mechanics of a particular game based on the official rules, then you are no longer speaking the same language as the people you are talking to. Because they are not sitting at your table. They don't have access to your particular language. All you're doing is confusing the issue which we then have to spend page after page of "do you mean this? No I mean this. This? No, not this. How about this? No, that's not right either". No one is discussing YOUR game. What we are discussing is the game that we all share.

 

[kermit4karate]

I've always been a big advocate that RPG's as written are not complete games. They are essentially game creation engines - more along the lines of something like the Unreal Engine or other video game design platforms (if that is the right term). The game that I play at my table will vary from a little a lot from the game @Lanefan or @AlViking or you play. Heck, the rules debate upthread about minions shows just how differently we will interpret the actual rules of the system, never minding additional rules, house rules, official rules, 3rd party rules, campaign rules, table rules and social contract rules at a given table.

Which means that when we discuss systems, we have to be very careful to be very clear about what is being discussed. I can talk about how exploration in 5e is fantastic now that I have imported the exploration rules from Ironsworn. But, that doesn't really help anyone else does it? It doesn't clarify the conversation. @Lanefan runs multi-year campaigns in a homebrew system that is only tangentially related to D&D. I don't think that's an unfair characterization. You'll see people talk about how lethal 1e is, whereas I totally disagree because, at my table, it wasn't. AD&D was D&D on easy mode AFAIC. Monsters with nearly no HP that deal negligible damage vs PC's that can easily rocket their AC's into the stratosphere.

That doesn't make me right and them wrong though. It's just that the games that each of us created using the RPG game creation engine that is D&D resulted in very different experiences.

So, yeah, while it's very true that home brewing and whatnot is part and parcel to gaming, it's also true that in order to have a conversation between groups, we have to differentiate between the game we create and the game creation engine. If I'm adding some ruleset to my D&D game, it's because either the ruleset I'm using doesn't have rules for that or I don't like the existing rules. Ship combat is a perfect example. There were no official ship to ship combat rules in D&D before Ghosts of Saltmarsh (I'm specifically talking about 5e). The GoS rules I didn't like very much, so, I used a different set. But, if we're going to discuss ship to ship combat in D&D, the only common language we likely have is the GoS rules. Me talking about tacking into the wind and generating wind direction and speed doesn't make any sense in the GoS rules.

If you're not going to draw conclusions about the mechanics of a particular game based on the official rules, then you are no longer speaking the same language as the people you are talking to. Because they are not sitting at your table. They don't have access to your particular language. All you're doing is confusing the issue which we then have to spend page after page of "do you mean this? No I mean this. This? No, not this. How about this? No, that's not right either". No one is discussing YOUR game. What we are discussing is the game that we all share.

That was downright eloquent. Very well said. Thank you.

 

[kermit4karate]

I find it a bit odd that a house rule to fix something could be unhelpful, but if someone were to publish the house rule on DnD Beyond it would be a good fix. (How much of a budget is needed to make a heartbreaker a game system?)

That being said, I certainly agree that the things that work for getting buy in to try something very greatly from person to person - and that I would probably be annoyed by needing several pages of house rules if I didn't really trust the DM.

Well, the "house" in house rule is the DM's house. Players are welcome to ask or suggest that a particular house rule be added or removed, but the decision must be the DM's alone IMO. When a DM, even out of a desire to appease and ensure that everyone feels heard, allows the ship to be pushed and pulled too much by the players, the ship runs aground and sinks. It may not feel democratic to ever silence debate, may leave a bad taste in one's mouth, but it's necessary. We can try to imagine it otherwise, try to manifest something better and more evolved, but we're only fooling ourselves when we do.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Please provide me an example of a useful response then, other than sympathy (which is perfectly valid).

Breaking down the problem with them, and possibly helping them do a work-around that isn't dependent on the GM houseruling.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think mainly suggesting near systems (e.g. for DnD, A5E or lord of the rings 5e or ToV) that may address the issue, some rules supplement that may address it (like Up in Arms addresses some issues for WFRP 4e), or even complete other systems that may meet overall needs better, say Dragonbane or the like.

Though most of that runs into the same problem that its more useful for a GM than a player.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fine for me, but people sometimes get funny about being told to play another game.

I think that can be legitimate, but if you aren't a position to houserule it, that isn't likely to be any easier.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I find it a bit odd that a house rule to fix something could be unhelpful, but if someone were to publish the house rule on DnD Beyond it would be a good fix. (How much of a budget is needed to make a heartbreaker a game system?)

That being said, I certainly agree that the things that work for getting buy in to try something very greatly from person to person - and that I would probably be annoyed by needing several pages of house rules if I didn't really trust the DM.

Well, that's another issue; whether houseruling the problem is more--extensive--than a simple houserule. I mean, its an extreme example if you have some problems with D&D style hit points, that's liable to require more than just a simple houserule or two (and honestly, probably hitting another game is more practical).

 

[Hussar]

/snip
but the decision must be the DM's alone IMO. /snip

Why?

I realize that this has been the general sort of consensus for years, but, why? Why not vote? Why must the decision be the DM's alone? Heck, my players generally know the mechanics better than I do. Mostly because of my 5 players, 3 have years of DMing experience in their own games. That, and I can't really be bothered all that often to look up rules. I rely on the players to look up the more nitty gritty of rules. If the players want to abuse that? Well, okay. The other players generally catch it anyway. In the rare cases that players start abusing things to the detriment of the game, those players tend not to last too long at my table anyway. Mostly because the other players make it very clear that we're not interested in "winning" D&D.

I ADORE it when players come forward with house rules or new mechanics. It's freaking fantastic. It means they are so engaged in the game that they want to actively help make the game better. That should be encouraged, IMO. The whole "It's my game" thing turns me off so much as a DM or a player. It's not my game. It's our game.

 

[kermit4karate]

The term is "Dungeon Master." Or "Game Master."

Dungeon. Master.

Not "Dungeon Advisor."

Inventing the idea of a DM was a good idea. Let's not go and reinvent the wheel here.

 

[kermit4karate]

Why?

I realize that this has been the general sort of consensus for years, but, why? Why not vote? Why must the decision be the DM's alone? Heck, my players generally know the mechanics better than I do. Mostly because of my 5 players, 3 have years of DMing experience in their own games. That, and I can't really be bothered all that often to look up rules. I rely on the players to look up the more nitty gritty of rules. If the players want to abuse that? Well, okay. The other players generally catch it anyway. In the rare cases that players start abusing things to the detriment of the game, those players tend not to last too long at my table anyway. Mostly because the other players make it very clear that we're not interested in "winning" D&D.

I ADORE it when players come forward with house rules or new mechanics. It's freaking fantastic. It means they are so engaged in the game that they want to actively help make the game better. That should be encouraged, IMO. The whole "It's my game" thing turns me off so much as a DM or a player. It's not my game. It's our game.

Because it doesn't work. Same reason movie productions, theater plays, businesses, classrooms, militaries and militias, and governments always have a clear leader.

You do you, though.