D&D 5E Restrictions in D&D Next

[Lwaxy]

I have/had as many games with restrictions as I have had without. Depends on the campaign setting, really. Don't need or want limitations from the game side.

 

[am181d]

I don't want a generic game where everything is a free for all.

When I build out a new setting, I decide what classes to include, what races to include, what variant rules to use, etc. I do not require the game designers to make up restrictions for me, and I will ignore any restrictions they put in place.

If the goal of the new edition is to create an inclusive gaming experience, then it makes sense to present things that only half the audience wants as optional out-of-the-box.

Ergo: Paladin alignment restrictions should be an optional sidebar that I will ignore. I'm not sure what the counter-argument is.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I agree that limits/restrictions can be good for campaign flavour, for old school Greyhawk you might put back race/class restrictions (dwarves can't be wizards, only humans can be rangers etc) and limit monks to being lawful in alignment.

Like there is no divine power source in 4th Ed Dark Sun.

No Psionics on Krynn.

But as others said, much easier to add.

 

[billd91]

Then simply have restrictions in your games.

I don't see why it's necessary to have restrictions hardcoded into the game. Hardcoding them in makes it very difficult for people who don't want them to extract them. Adding them seems much easier.

I disagree. I think restrictions help make certain classes or other intellectual property elements of the game distinctive in character. WotC should use them, as needed, to maintain the character of certain elements of the game and maintain D&D's identity. Removing them, officially, would change their character and weaken D&D's distinctiveness.

It's very easy to remove restrictions at the individual table. It's harder to promote and maintain a distinctive identity in the RPG marketplace.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I disagree. I think restrictions help make certain classes or other intellectual property elements of the game distinctive in character. WotC should use them, as needed, to maintain the character of certain elements of the game and maintain D&D's identity. Removing them, officially, would change their character and weaken D&D's distinctiveness.

It's very easy to remove restrictions at the individual table. It's harder to promote and maintain a distinctive identity in the RPG marketplace.

I don't think D&D's distinctiveness is really at issue. The D&D name remains the only PnP rpg with any name recognition outside of the hobby. It has gone through any number of revisions, reimaginings, and paradigm shifts over its lifespan. I don't think that allowing non-neutral druids is suddenly going to change the feel of the game or lose the customer base. 3e's already done the big opening up of all classes to all races at all times, and very little was lost in the process; the game did great for quite a while. People still play dwarven wizards less often than clerics, and halfling rogues more often than barbarians, there's no reason to force their hands.

As to the drawbacks of limitations, I'm just reposting this because it made sense and I don't see any reason to do anything further in the subject.

To me, the ultimate example of limits for limits sake are class skill lists. Since 2e, you're severely restricted in your ability to take skills outside narrow lists of what someone thought would be appropriate for your class. Right now I'm playing a psychic warrior who grew up as an animal handler. But I don't have handle animal as a skill. Why? Because someone thought that the class shouldn't have that skill on their list, and because being able to take that skill would be SO overpowering that there should be no mechanism for adding a class skill to your list. It would be game breaking, I guess?And I think the opposite. It's easier to take away someone's options than it is to add them in. Because the game rules and balance should work assuming every option.

Paladins smite evil. Remove the LG restriction and what do they smite? Still evil? Or do we now have to change a rule, make up something new.

Paladins smite opposition? Install an LG restriction and . . . they still smite opposing characters. Same rules still work.

 

[prosfilaes]

Ergo: Paladin alignment restrictions should be an optional sidebar that I will ignore. I'm not sure what the counter-argument is.

hafrogman upthread mentioned replacing "smite evil" with "smite opposition"; but that doesn't work the same way, and adds different dynamics to the game world. Having a lawful good paladin that smites evil tells us that LG works with CG and fights evil of all sorts, and that a paladin doesn't have the power to smack down anyone he wants, even if a neutral character is threatening everyone, they still can't smite them.

Personally, even if it's just myself, I find I work better with fewer options sometimes. It reduces analysis paralysis, and helps me make something appropriately themed. And it's a lot easier for me as DM to toss a couple books at my players and let them loose, possibly with a couple changes, then it is to make a large house rules document explaining all the things that have changed.

In practice, after 3E, there was no game world without spellcasting dwarves--no WotC world, and I don't recalling any 3rd party world that removed that option. There's pros and cons to that, but it feels like we lost color without much gain. It made dwarves that much more funny humans instead of a really different race.

 

[Lwaxy]

To me, the ultimate example of limits for limits sake are class skill lists. Since 2e, you're severely restricted in your ability to take skills outside narrow lists of what someone thought would be appropriate for your class. Right now I'm playing a psychic warrior who grew up as an animal handler. But I don't have handle animal as a skill.

Why didn't your GM just give you that skill as an extra class skill then?

 

[am181d]

I disagree. I think restrictions help make certain classes or other intellectual property elements of the game distinctive in character. WotC should use them, as needed, to maintain the character of certain elements of the game and maintain D&D's identity. Removing them, officially, would change their character and weaken D&D's distinctiveness.

It's very easy to remove restrictions at the individual table. It's harder to promote and maintain a distinctive identity in the RPG marketplace.

I'm very skeptical of this approach. D&D is the first/biggest/baddest RPG ever. I don't think it should be appealing to a niche. To my mind, core D&D should be an all-purpose fantasy RPG, appealing to the broadest possible audience. Smaller RPGs need to be more distinctive because they need to distinguish themselves from D&D. It should be D&D's job to say "you don't need to play any other RPGs."

I believe that one of the reasons some people didn't grokk to 4e is that it seemed to be geared to a very specific (tactics-centric) game style with very specific game world assumption (*cough* Tieflings *cough*).

I think the clear lesson that Wizards learned with 4e is that while there's a market for that content, they want to make it optional so that folks who don't like playing with miniatures or folks who don't like playing with Race X (*cough*) can still keep playing.

 

[hafrogman]

Why didn't your GM just give you that skill as an extra class skill then?

Because as a player I'm SO adverse to asking for exceptions to rules for my characters that I didn't ask. I get that it makes it my fault in a very large way . . . but it still indicative to me of a system flaw. Should I have to ask every time I want to rewrite the skill lists? Because that is an example of something I would want to do every time I made a character.

This 3e fighter was a guard, can I take spot and listen?
This 4e rogue is just a swashbuckler, can I NOT take thievery?*

*shrug*

I set up my post in direct opposition to ForeverSlayer's mostly for the rhetorical effect. Just like every issue, it's a little more complicated than that.

If you remove every limit then it quickly stops being a game. Why not have every character with 18s in every stat and take whatever abilities they want from every class? Because it would be silly. So we obviously need some restrictions.

But as a player I tend to scrupulously adhere to the rules . . . because the players I've seen who were always trying to bend something for their benefit tend to cheese me off. So much that when we're talking about a rules change that isn't really a benefit, I still try to look for rules legal ways to accomplish it so that I don't end up looking like them.

RPGs have two elements. Role Playing and Game. I want my game to have restrictions. I want my role playing not to. To me, alignment is role playing . . . it shouldn't infringe upon game.


----------------------


* I do realize I'm sort of frothy ranting against class skill lists here, way beyond the topic of the thread. It just really is my number one pet peeve in all of D&D. I'm really hoping the background system will put an end to my suffering. Carry on.

 

[B.T.]

And I loathe restrictions.

They give absolutes in a world designed to be limited only by our own imaginations. Just because you, or a game designer or Gary Gygax himself couldn't or didn't bother to think of a situation where a rule didn't apply doesn't mean that someone else's story and imagination should be chained in by those restrictions.

Give us the system and let us work out the details.

Yeah, the only reason someone would want class restrictions is because he has a limited imagination.

More seriously, yes, I want class restrictions. They add flavor and character to the game. If the elves practice a special style of combat that blends magic and swordplay, then why shouldn't it be available only to elves? It makes the races distinct and more interesting.