D&D 5E Resting and the frikkin' Elephant in the Room

[Imaro]

Yes. Why must it be one or the other? Why can’t those of us that prefer Big Challenge and DM Light more than Big DM and Big Story get some of what we want ? Why must Big Dmites always fight us every time we bring up balance issues when they find it so easy to just have Big DM change things for their table? Why can’t those of us DM Lights have a more rigid and balanced ruleset that the Big Dmites can then tweak to suit their taste?

Isn't this exactly what you got with the previous edition?

EDIT: And if I'm recalling correctly... wasn't there a system in the DMG (or was it DMG 2) for procedurally generated dungeons or something along those lines? If so why is the next edition veering in the other direction that big of a deal?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Isn't this exactly what you got with the previous edition?

Not just that, no, it's really one of many styles the last ed could be played in, you didn't need to re-write it to run it improvisationally - heck, that's how I run the epic-level campaign I'm finishing out, most of the time.

Besides, the contrary 'style' got exactly what it wanted in every edition before that. And also got it in PF and the OSR movement, for the brief time they theoretically had to tweak D&D to do what they wanted.

So what's your point? That said previous edition should be moved to an OGL so it can be legally cloned, so that shoak1 will have nothing more to complain about than you did while edition-warring against 4e? Even though he's not edition warring against 5e, just sticking up for his right to play 5e in the style he prefers, however much extra work that may require of him?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Then don't imply he's playing a boardgame rather than an RPG, because that is flat-out telling him he's doing it wrong.

I wasn't implying. He specifically said, "we like to play D&D like it's a board game." I took him at his word.

However, you seem to have a very different understanding of what [MENTION=54380]shoak1[/MENTION] is saying than what I took from his specific descriptions. And he seems to agree with your assessment, so I'll take that to mean that when he said "we like to play D&D like it's a board game" may not be exactly what he meant.

My point all along, though, has been that there isn't anything wrong with playing it as a board game, or really any other way that anybody wishes to play the game. From what he's described it sounds quite interesting, although admittedly not a play style I would play for a long period of time. The problem that I'm seeing is that people are responding to statements such as "most gamers play it my way."

Now, in response your post he says "his way" is maybe 30%, and that's a quite different statement than "most."

Regardless, I now have different thoughts based on your and his last two posts, and there's probably little else I can contribute anyway.

 

[OB1]

... just sticking up for his right to play 5e in the style he prefers, however much extra work that may require of him?

Tony, no one is arguing against his right to play 5E in the style he prefers. [MENTION=54380]shoak1[/MENTION] is, along with [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] , arguing that there is an elephant in the room in 5E that needs fixing and should be fixed by WOTC. That is a far different discussion than simply talking about preferred play style and how to achieve it. I've offered several suggestions to fixing the rest issue that would, I believe, fit perfectly with shoak1's style, as have others. I love those discussions because it gives me a deeper understanding of the game and potential tools to make the game more enjoyable for my players.

To answer's shoak1's question. The reason DM Lites can't get a more rigid and balanced ruleset that the Big DMites can tweak is because there isn't enough demand for it to make it profitable for WOTC. WOTC has limited bandwidth and page-count to provide the official version of the game each year, and they find it more profitable to cater the system to the majority who want a looser ruleset with more DM involvement.

 

[Imaro]

Not just that, no, it's really one of many styles the last ed could be played in, you didn't need to re-write it to run it improvisationally - heck, that's how I run the epic-level campaign I'm finishing out, most of the time.

I never said "just that"... And if you read the post I quoted he's not just talking about improvisation. He's speaking to a more rigidly balanced rules set... do you disagree 4e offered that?

Besides, the contrary 'style' got exactly what it wanted in every edition before that. And also got it in PF and the OSR movement, for the brief time they theoretically had to tweak D&D to do what they wanted.

Wait what? Old school D&D by it's rules, advice and play structure is pretty procedural and balanced in it's own particular way... at least AD&D 1e, B/X, and BECMI as I understand them are. Not sure why we're discussing PF and OSR clones since I'm speaking to D&D.

So what's your point?

He asked... "Why must it be one or the other? Why can’t those of us that prefer Big Challenge and DM Light more than Big DM and Big Story get some of what we want ? Why must Big Dmites always fight us every time we bring up balance issues when they find it so easy to just have Big DM change things for their table? Why can’t those of us DM Lights have a more rigid and balanced ruleset that the Big Dmites can then tweak to suit their taste?"


And I gave him my thoughts as to why this edition veers away from that since the last edition catered to that playstyle. It was to make the point that his playstyle was actually catered to previously...

That said previous edition should be moved to an OGL so it can be legally cloned, so that shoak1 will have nothing more to complain about than you did while edition-warring against 4e? Even though he's not edition warring against 5e, just sticking up for his right to play 5e in the style he prefers, however much extra work that may require of him?

What are you even talking about here, who claimed he was edition warring? As I said in another thread... I should start a game where posters guess how many times you can bring up edition warring in any one thread....

 

[Tony Vargas]

Increment your counter, Imaro!

I wasn't implying. He specifically said, "we like to play D&D like it's a board game." I took him at his word.

However, you seem to have a very different understanding of what [MENTION=54380]shoak1[/MENTION] is saying than what I took from his specific descriptions. And he seems to agree with your assessment, so I'll take that to mean that when he said "we like to play D&D like it's a board game" may not be exactly what he meant.

The way 'is a board game' or 'like a boardgame' was used to falsely defame 4e throughout the edition war may have been lost on Steve, in spite of his join date.

My point all along, though, has been that there isn't anything wrong with playing it as a board game, or really any other way that anybody wishes to play the game. From what he's described it sounds quite interesting, although admittedly not a play style I would play for a long period of time.

I think the choice of words to describe focusing on tactical depth in the combat pillar of an RPG was unfortunate, for the above reasons, and that contrasting it with 'all RPG,' was even more so.

As a result of that phrasing, acknowledgements could end up sounding like condemnations, or at least sounding dismissive or condescending.

The problem that I'm seeing is that people are responding to statements such as "most gamers play it my way."

That gets my goat, too. I guess it's human nature to assume yourself to be representative of some imagined plurality? You'd think RPGers, members, as we we are, of an infinitesimal hobby, and soemtimes other minorities, as well, would not leap to that kind of generalization.

Now, in response your post he says "his way" is maybe 30%, and that's a quite different statement than "most."

I still don't care for made-up statistics.
It's enough one person likes to play one way, and is willing to find a way to do it with D&D.

 

[Imaro]

To answer's shoak1's question. The reason DM Lites can't get a more rigid and balanced ruleset that the Big DMites can tweak is because there isn't enough demand for it to make it profitable for WOTC. WOTC has limited bandwidth and page-count to provide the official version of the game each year, and they find it more profitable to cater the system to the majority who want a looser ruleset with more DM involvement.

This... didn't want to come out and state it since I'd probably be accused of edition warring...again... but yeah pretty much the fact that D&D is a business and they are going to go where the money is, i.e. what the majority of their consumer base wants.

 

[Tony Vargas]

is a business and they are going to go where the money is, i.e. what the majority of their consumer base wants.

WotC is a business, and the vast majority of their customer base want CCGs.

I never said "just that"... And if you read the post I quoted he's not just talking about improvisation.

That's the contrary style being held up. DM Empowerment couched as 'improvisation' or 'inserting things before resolution' or 'changing things.'

He's speaking to a more rigidly balanced rules set... do you disagree 4e offered that?

I'd quibble with 'rigidly,' since balance contributes to maximizing player choice, which is anything but rigid.

Old school D&D by it's rules, advice and play structure is pretty procedural and balanced in it's own particular way... at least AD&D 1e, B/X, and BECMI as I understand them are.

Procedural? I suppose, in presentation inherited from its wargaming roots. Balanced? Not successfully, no. Like 5e, the classic game invited what shoak1 calls "Big DM" intervention or we've been calling improv, and, of course, that 5e calls DM Empowerment.
If he's using 'Story' conventionally (WoD/Storyteller 'narrativism') when he says 'Big Story' (and I kinda doubt that), it was possible at any time if the DM wanted to, but not really a 'thing' until 2e, IMHO.

Not sure why we're discussing PF and OSR clones since I'm speaking to D&D.

They were, and remain, available, very well-supported, alternatives.
You brought up previously-available, now un-supported, alternative.
They serve as contrast.

He asked... "Why must it be one or the other?

That's actually the real question, IMHO. And the answer is it needn't be, and hasn't been, on the part of the game, for going on 10 years, now, at least (if not going all the way back). What he's bumping up against isn't so much the system, but the attitude of the community.

 

[Ristamar]

Its not difficult if that's the way the game is played - just like if I play Monopoly with friends its not difficult keeping them on the board. I would argue that being able to roam freely off the board is a feature of your playstyle, rather than an inherent and neccessary feature of D and D.

I would argue that freedom isn't just a feature, it's the primary feature. The "DM taint" you seek to marginalize at all costs is the very thing that attracts many gamers to the table to play D&D. They enjoy the unique taint a good DM brings to the chair. When they speak reverently of exploits past, it's often in fond remembrance of an explosion of taint!

Sure, there are bad DMs that need to relax their taint. Unbridled, irresponsible taint can easily make a game go to crap. But when a player makes a move toward the taint, whether that be from mindful exploration or pure chance, he is expressing his trust in the DM. An experienced DM need not withdraw his taint. He should use it confidently!

Do your players celebrate your taint's absence? Were they traumatized by some truly awful taint and now seek to avoid it at all costs? Do they say things like "Hey, Bob, remember that time I almost walked right into Steve's taint while we were playing Curse of Strahd? Man, that was a close call. He could have let me go knee deep into it, but instead he put me on the right path and kept me from stumbling into that filth!"

If your taint has soiled your group's enjoyment, there's no need to linger in shame. Bad taint happens to every DM at some point. But you learn from the mistake and clean up your game for the next session. Your taint will start to shine and grow with some measured preparation and continued practice. Eventually the players will not only stop trying to avoid your taint, they'll actively seek it out!

 

[Caliban]

I would argue that freedom isn't just a feature, it's the primary feature. The "DM taint" you seek to marginalize at all costs is the very thing that attracts many gamers to the table to play D&D. They enjoy the unique taint a good DM brings to the chair. When they speak reverently of exploits past, it's often in fond remembrance of an explosion of taint!

Indeed, I have often been complimented on the quality and strength of my taint. I've even been told it lingers after I'm gone, like a pungent musk.

When asked how I have such a strong taint, whether it's natural or if I have to take supplements, I just tell them "Tain't Natural."