D&D 5E Some things I don't care for in the D&D culture

[Nifft]

Only in table loaded with other munchkins. If you have that utopia then all is well. In a regular group, someone who is only out to have their fun at the expense of others is a fun vampire and needs to be staked from the table.

If you allow the guy who is good at mechanics to do your character's mechanics, then you get many the benefits of munchkindom without needing to be one yourself.

(That's how many people handle real-life mechanical issues, too: they pay a mechanic to fix their car, rather than try to do it themselves.)

If you insist on fixing your own car, and you also insist that you must be allowed in the race with a car built by an expert mechanic, and you care about the relative performance of your vehicles -- then yeah, you're not going to have fun. But that situation is due mostly to your own issues, rather than the fact that mechanics exist.

 

[El Mahdi]

There are many fantasy games on the market and even a few generic ones. D&D should not have to change the very things that made it famous and recognizable for the sake of more mass appeal.

First, I'm not advocating that D&D needs to change or fix this; so I'm not sure where that came from.

Second, I think it's a false conclusion to say that those conceits are what made D&D famous. As I said (and Lanefan said) those conceits were there to one degree or another from the very start - when D&D had no competition, when there was only D&D.

Predominantly what made D&D famous and recognizable is that it was first. It was the first, and for a period of time - the only - game in town.

Whether D&D remained famous and recognizable due to those conceits, or those conceits are famous and recognizable because of D&D's very existence, is a chicken-and-egg argument. An argument that nobody is qualified to definitively decide.

Almost from the beginning there were those who wanted a different fantasy than D&D offered and some of them created their own games such as Runequest to better realize that vision.

Thus proving, in your own words, that from the very beginning there were people just like me that found the baked in conceits something they didn't like about D&D. Which is why I mentioned it - this being a thread about things in the D&D culture [We] don't care about...

The problem for me is (and by problem I mean minor annoyance - a minor annoyance that I can and have fixed for my own D&D games), is that those other games are not the rules systems I want. I want D&D mechanics; just with generic conceits.

D&D is fine conceptually as it was originally designed.

I agree. Nor did I imply otherwise.

However, sometimes fine just isn't good enough for me...

 

[El Mahdi]

Though they've become more hard-wired as time's gone by, those things have mostly been in since pretty close to Day 1.

I agree, and almost verbatim what I said...

It wasn't as much of a problem for me in earlier editions. The simpler the rules were in earlier editions, the less prominent those conceits were. But as D&D matured and new iterations written, they were hard-coded into the rules more and more.

 

[Lanefan]

... they were essentially role-play powergamers ...

Role-play powergamers, eh? Nice term...I like it.

Now, did they:
- stay in character strongly enough to role-play themselves right out of the party if such was the logical thing for that character to do?
- give the rest of you a chance to be heard?
- add to the entertainment value of the game?
- add to the depth and richness of the game world?
- not sulk or pout if things went badly?

If yes to all, how can that not be fun?

Lanefan

 

[Sunseeker]

Role-play powergamers, eh? Nice term...I like it.

Now, did they:
- stay in character strongly enough to role-play themselves right out of the party if such was the logical thing for that character to do?

Yes...several times, which was more annoying than it was good RP because they were making clearly incompatible characters from the get go.

- give the rest of you a chance to be heard?

Some did, some didn't.

- add to the entertainment value of the game?

Yes and no.

- add to the depth and richness of the game world?

Yes and no.

- not sulk or pout if things went badly?

Yes and no.

If yes to all, how can that not be fun?

Lanefan

Like all other powergamers, some of them were fun, some of them shared the limelight even though they enjoyed being top dog at their thing. Some of them didn't.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I want D&D mechanics; just with generic conceits.

Why? If you don't mind me asking.

 

[arjomanes]

I personally think the D&D group defines the experience, regardless of edition. To me, new players almost always make for a more fun group since there is a greater sense of wonder and imagination. They are also more immersive since they don't know all the rules. It also helps me meta-game less. I certainly don't want to be the one passing around torches when trolls approach, instead of wondering what these horrible creatures are. Likewise, a DM who introduces completely new monsters or changes key elements of them, can be very refreshing as well.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Not to derail, but I've been thinking about taking a look at Swords & Wizardry to steal adventure ideas from...how is it?

It's a great lite system which is about 85% OD&D (Complete is based on the original LBB edition and all supplements; White Box S&W is just the original edition). I say 85% because it does provide for both ascending and descending AC rules, as well as a unique one-save mechanic (but the standard save system is also an option), as well as several other variant rules. What's most intriguing about S&WC is how mechanically lite it is....lots of "absent" rules that are not there because the old school methodology does not require them. You'll notice this when playing, situations will arise where you'll realize that there's no specific rule on a given action or condition...and then realize that there is a rule: "the GM decides what the rule is."* Very old school.

Either way check it out....the Complete edition rules are free in PDF here: https://www.froggodgames.com/swords-wizardry-complete-rulebook


*Some rules are missing because they weren't in OD&D either, and since this is a simulacra it refrains from adding unnecessarily. However, a byproduct of the original game was the need for the GM to figure stuff out on the fly....i.e. Gord the fighter just fell into a lake unconscious....when does he drown? The GM can handle this several ways, but the rules do not tell you how/when someone drowns, so you can determine this several ways, the most common answer being "How long would it take an actual person to drown when they fell in a pool unconscious?" ...and that's the rule that works best in OD&D/S&WC.

 

[El Mahdi]

Why? If you don't mind me asking.

I don't mind, though I'm only going to answer this once. This is my opinion, and therefore not up for debate. If you want to know merely out of curiosity, then read on. If you want to know in order to argue that my preferences are somehow wrong, then just move along...and don't even bother replying. I will not respond to further enquiries concerning this...


I simply prefer the rules of D&D. They've always been the best for me. The best balance of granularity, abstractness, and ease of gameplay. Sure, other games have come along with mechanics that were an improvement, but D&D was first, and always finds a way to come back with something better than everybody else. Besides which, D&D is the lingua franca of roleplaying games - the one that has the most commonality among RPG fans. 5E for me, rules-wise, is just about perfect...except for those pesky, hard-coded conceits (which are admittedly less prominent in this iteration than the last two, but still present and unavoidable).

 

[transtemporal]

One thread is fine, unless they end up getting out of hand.

Rules "balance" and rules lawyering

I think an over-emphasis on balance is unnecessary in a PnP game, since balance is mostly self-managed by the group; i.e. if something gets too out-of-whack, someone will mention it. Some light 'rules lobbying' is ok in our group but not 'rules lawyering'. Its up to the DM/Group to set their expectations early on.

Some people hate that 5e is more about rulings than rules but I like it personally. I am allowed to apply common sense! *gasp*

The importance for rules to "realistically" portray what "could happen" in a given situation

"Realistic" is relative to the genre, tone and setting you're playing in. DnD is aimed at a reasonably fast-paced swords and sorcery fantasy genre so its quite abstract. If you want a more simulationist game, DnD probably isn't the system for that. The DMG has some rules for modelling the effect of wounds etc but I have not looked at it.

The concept of speccing and character builds in D&D

5e doesn't require them. Of course, theres nothing that says you can't build a super-optimised toon, whoops I mean character, if you want. And there is something to be said for team synergy