D&D 5E Restrictions in D&D Next

[hafrogman]

(That was irony in case anyone missed it)

It's not really irony, more reductio ad absurdum. I can do it too. ALL RESTRICTIONS! Why should I let the players play at all? NO classes or races are allowed!

. . . it doesn't really add anything to the discussion, though.

Yeah, restrictions are good. They make for a coherent game.

Here we have a cogent point, though. Except, nobody is saying that a DM can't implement their own restrictions (other than B.T. trying to claim that 4e did just to throw mud at an edition he hates). What we're asking for is a D&D system that doesn't assume that everyone wants to run a game of Arthurian Chivalry. We want a system that will run all the different flavors of D&D that people have enjoyed over the past 38 years.

 

[Mallus]

If I want to play a Wookie accountant/finger-painter/nematologist in a game of Arthurian Chivalry I MUST BE ACCOMMODATED!

But traditional D&D isn't analogous to a game focused on recreating Arthurian Romances.

Yeah, restrictions are good. They make for a coherent game.

"Coherent" takes on a new meaning when applied to D&D.

ie, incoherent.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

It's not really irony, more reductio ad absurdum. I can do it too. ALL RESTRICTIONS! Why should I let the players play at all? NO classes or races are allowed!

. . . it doesn't really add anything to the discussion, though.

Nuts, you beat me to my punchline. Oh well. What I was hoping to add to the discussion was to quash the silly "There shouldn't be any restrictions" idea running around upthread. We could then focus the discussion more usefully on the question of which restrictions are beneficial. (And I don't think there was anyone arguing for all restrictions)

I happen to like coherent games, in Edwards' sense where the mechanics support the setting and genre conceits. D&D has always been the poster child for incoherent games, and it's still fun, but I don't think I'd like to see it lose the coherence it has. Unfortunately this runs contrary to D&DN's goal of accommodating all play styles so I may be disappointed.

 

[Baron Von Mandrick]

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 agree with this. I like restrictions even though it means sometimes I won't play a Paladin I might otherwise have played, but I'm glad those restrictions exist in the world.

I also don't mind taking restrictions out at the DM's discretion in his world, and agree that it's easier to take out, than to add in. It's not impossible to do either, but staring with the restrictions in there establishes it as the norm.

 

[Cadfan]

NO RESTRICTIONS DARNIT!

If I want to play a Wookie accountant/finger-painter/nematologist in a game of Arthurian Chivalry I MUST BE ACCOMMODATED!

(That was irony in case anyone missed it)

Yeah, restrictions are good. They make for a coherent game.

I love the underlying assumption that howling at the door, beating down the entry to your home, are D&D playing barbarians who want nothing more than to ruin your game by refusing to accept the setting the DM lays out, and yet who will be instantly stopped in their tracks by a line in a book saying that they're not allowed.

 

[Dausuul]

Restrictions like this are the cayenne pepper of D&D. A little pinch here and there enhances the flavor of the game. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to unscrew the lid on the shaker and dump the whole thing in the pot.

For example, I like the idea that paladins have a code, and violating that code costs the paladin access to her abilities, perhaps forever. I don't like having one code for the entire class. I want different codes available, including evil codes for those of us who enjoy the idea of an honorable-but-cruel "black knight" paladin.

Forbidding barbarians to be Lawful? Screw that. That's such a fiddly, pointless rule. It adds nothing to the game; all it does is start arguments about what Lawful means. (Ask any ten gamers what constitutes Lawful behavior, and you'll get eleven different answers.)

 

[FireLance]

3) In 4th edition, "Core" became whatever the Character Builder supported. "Everything is core" followed automatically once the Character Builder was available and updated on a reliable schedule.

That, plus the promise of ongoing support in terms of powers, feats and other game material. This is why there is a chapter on Swordmages in Arcane Power, and new artificer powers and feats in Dragon.

Frankly, I think you would only have problems with the word "core" if you insist on defining "core" as something that you, as a DM, are required to include in your games by your players. If so, it might be more productive to stand up to your players and manage their expectations. Explaining to them what WotC actually means when it uses the term "core" might be a good place to start.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It occurs to me that a heavily restrictive rules set might serve a valuable social function - it lets the GM be the good guy. Open rules, with restrictions applied by the GM, make the GM look like the bad guy. He's spoiling the fun. If it's the other way round, then the GM's a hero.

The advantage of rules which don't have to be Rule Zero-ed is if the GM's authoritative position within the group is not strong. If the players are of a argumentative bent then the more justification for his rulings the GM can bring to bear, the better.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I love the underlying assumption that howling at the door, beating down the entry to your home, are D&D playing barbarians who want nothing more than to ruin your game by refusing to accept the setting the DM lays out, and yet who will be instantly stopped in their tracks by a line in a book saying that they're not allowed.

The funny thing is, I think this is how a lot of rpg groups work, more or less. The rules really are accorded great status. Evidence for this is the Sage Advice column in Dragon, which started its run in 1979.

It's probably much more of a big deal when gamist play is emphasised.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

Not a fan of things I spend money on telling me what I can't do. A yes! but... system is much more fun, intuitive, and leads to greater storytelling over a system that yells at me whenever I try to do something.