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

[Eric V]

It doesn't because it's not true.

Oh, it's true.

 

[Deset Gled]

Yes, many of us enjoy arguments (it's true).

No, we don't.

 

[kermit4karate]

No, we don't.

Ah, I see what you did there! TGIF, my winged Cthulian cherub friend.

 

[Cadence]

Musing that touches on rules, verisimilitude, realism, what the characters experience in the world, and not wanting to change sacred cows that make D&D be D&D...

Hit points. How have no PCs or NPCs in game figured out that "living beings" are essentially spirits whose essence is always trying to flee with an invisible forcefield holding them in the material world? I mean, they are just fine (with no ill effects) as long as that forcefield has even 1/total up - but the minute it passes the crucial level they are unconscious with it flickering and are in imminent danger of vamoosing within the next 18 to 30 seconds (and if they fail to flee it is still flickering for a while). How does that affect the view of "healing spells" when they actually just recharge force fields? Do the fact that there are healing potions (that recharge the field when taken "internally") mean that the forcefields are generated by the bodies? Or are they generated by the spirit-body interaction (is that why the forcefields usually have something physical inside them - because they need to)? Does being a minion merely mean one has the weakest possible force field? How does this change how animating undead is viewed - is it that it's bad to give things that don't have their own forcefield one? But why doesn't that apply to golems? etc...

Is it conservatism that has kept hit points as this great not-meat/maybe-luck/who-knows thing and stopped any of the rules (like 3.5s vitality and wound points) that would give them even a smidge more of a realistic veneer from really taking off? Or is it just a gameist price even most would be realists are willing to pay to make the game flow, and that adding anything else to it makes it too much for too many? If 6e made the default something that had wounds after a point would the revolt mostly be from older players or newer ones?

 

[Faolyn]

If that's true it isn't D&D's fault.

No, but look at the thread's title.

 

[Faolyn]

None of the examples you're using are rules governing GM behavior. That, specifically, is what I have a problem with. I'd rather have advice.

They all govern GM behavior. They govern how you address players who want their characters to act outside the rules and how you worldbuild. The books expect you to follow the rules, or houserule them away--which is pretty much what most narrative games say as well.

But honestly, I just can't understand why having the books write down what most GMs already do is so anathema to you.

 

[Enrahim]

They all govern GM behavior. They govern how you address players who want their characters to act outside the rules and how you worldbuild. The books expect you to follow the rules, or houserule them away--which is pretty much what most narrative games say as well.

But honestly, I just can't understand why having the books write down what most GMs already do is so anathema to you.

Writing something codifies something. Codification makes the activity feel different, even if they actually do not deviate from what you would have done anyway.

Also all codifications I have seen attempted are not covering the width of techniques I have employed as a GM.

 

[kermit4karate]

... having the books write down what most GMs already do is so anathema to you.

It's anathema to me too, BTW.

I will say, however, that anathema is a very cool word.

 

[kermit4karate]

Writing something codifies something. Codification makes the activity feel different, even if they actually do not deviate from what you would have done anyway.

Also all codifications I have seen attempted are not covering the width of techniques I have employed as a GM.

Ding ding ding!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

I homebrew and house rule a ton, but none of the changes I make fundamentally change the way D&D has been meant to be played. That said, the game has always endorsed and encouraged homebrew, so the freedom is there to change anything about it if one wants.

I'm just not gonna say that changes to what the DM can/cannot do, or to what the expectations of them are as referees of the game, are changes that I think enhance gameplay.

If someone thinks a DM is bad in a game for which good DMs already exist all over the place and have for years, that isn't because there aren't already rules and a good framework in place in the game. Good DMs are following the current rules and framework just fine. New rules aren't going to fix bad DMs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, but look at the thread's title.

A title explicitly called out as a rant by the OP, and IMO clearly designed to ruffle the feathers of those who prefer traditional gaming playstyles.