D&D General Stuff 5E Did Right

[Maxperson]

What's really nice is that the chassis is simple, but easily modified. A5E is a great example of how you can add more complicated subsystems into 5E.

Yeah. A5E is what I wish 5e was. Much simpler than 3e and 4e, but not overly simple like 5e. I think 5e went too far with the quest for simplicity.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Been considering a change to instant death poison for my OSE BX game:

-4 to all rolls and max hp cut in half for D8-con bonus days. If you get medical help (like back in town) it’s -1 and no hp loss. Magical fixes can just neutralize it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Been considering a change to instant death poison for my OSE BX game:

-4 to all rolls and max hp cut in half for D8-con bonus days. If you get medical help (like back in town) it’s -1 and no hp loss. Magical fixes can just neutralize it.

I still use it but rarely.

Once in current OSR game 5th level (manscorpion).

 

[Bacon Bits]

My objection was presenting subjective opinion of why a particular person likes it as objective fact.

Funny, I've noticed that people only make this objection when they also dislike the opinion being expressed. Being upset that people state opinions without carving out an exception for their opinion to live in is a form of sealioning. In effect, it sounds like you're saying, "I don't like that your argument was expressed so strongly. It's too convincing. Can you restate it with weaker phrasing for the benefit of myself and others who may disagree?"

I think people should be expected to tell when something is an opinion or belief. Stating something with endless exceptions and reservations is a great way to rob your argument of brevity and impact. Stating things in an assertive, straightforward manner is basic rhetoric.

When I was in school, my teachers made it real easy: If the author is not citing sources or writing in an authoritative source, then everything being stated is an opinion or a belief. That's part of assuming the author is making their best case. If they had relevant sources, they would cite them. If they had authority, they would exercise it. If they had data, they would provide it. If they don't... then all they have is opinion and belief.

 

[CleverNickName]

When I was in school, my teachers made it real easy: If the author is not citing sources or writing in an authoritative source, then everything being stated is an opinion or a belief. That's part of assuming the author is making their best case. If they had relevant sources, they would cite them. If they had authority, they would exercise it. If they had data, they would provide it. If they don't... then all they have is opinion and belief.

This is different from how they teach Composition 101. When you write something, the only information your reader has to work with is what comes from you. So if you expect your readers to make inferences, guesses, and assumptions to fill in the blanks, you must also accept that some of your readers are going to infer, guess, or assume incorrectly. If you cannot accept that, then as the writer it is your responsibility to be more specific.

In short: if the reader has to guess, and guesses wrong, it's the writer's fault. One of the (many, thankless) jobs of an editor is to keep this sort of thing to a minimum.

 

[Bacon Bits]

This is different from how they teach Composition 101. When you write something, the only information your reader has to work with is what comes from you. So if you expect your readers to make inferences, guesses, and assumptions to fill in the blanks, you must also accept that some of your readers are going to infer, guess, or assume incorrectly. If you cannot accept that, then as the writer it is your responsibility to be more specific.

In short: if the reader has to guess, and guesses wrong, it's the writer's fault. One of the (many, thankless) jobs of an editor is to keep this sort of thing to a minimum.

No, that's not always the case. Communication is always a two-party affair, and you cannot universally put the blame on one party. Language is inherently abstract, and most words have multiple meanings.

Meanwhile, if there are two possible interpretations of a given statement, and one doesn't make a lick of sense literally, rhetorically, or metaphorically, while the other interpretation does, choosing the one that's nonsense is called a disingenuous reading.

At the end of the day, "I don't understand, can you explain more," is never a poor response.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I think there's a pragmatic approach as well. Regardless of either of these positions on when people should qualify their statements, people on this forum do/are express(ing) personal positions without specifically calling it out each time. That's an apparent part of the board culture (honestly, not that rare*, since I joined the forum and didn't notice it as unusual), and unlikely to change. Assuming an implied 'IMO/as I see it/so far as I can tell' when not otherwise noted seems like a way to make experiencing this board less miserable.
*perhaps I should be adding something in here, to denote it as personal experience.

And that's really where I fall on this. Everyone can do what they like. It's just that the one lone voice in the wilderness pulling a Lebowski* every Xth post seems to be the only person worked up over this. Everyone else is perfectly aware that the posts are people expressing positions or opinions and going on with their lives.
*'Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man'

 

[FrozenNorth]

I’d add the focus on rulings not rules should be included.

I’m a big fan of rulings over rules. It also led to some simpler language used in the rules overall, which makes the game more accessible.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I’m a big fan of rulings over rules. It also led to some simpler language used in the rules overall, which makes the game more accessible.

One thing that disappointed me about TWF in D&D 2024 is that it's heavily keyword-oriented, very synthetic in its language, and even more obtuse in how it functions. Instead of giving an example or providing clear guidance, it tries to write something that will dodge disingenuine rules lawyering rather than explaining to the reader what something is supposed to do.

 

[BoneMan]

As far as I am concerned the only thing that 5e did that had value was introduce Lair Actions and Legendary Actions.

Advantage/Disadvantage is a TERRIBLE mechanic.
It reduces everything to the same roll and removes all reasons for the PCs to work together to find synergies with other characters. It makes every advantage basically and auto hit and makes any disadvantage an auto miss.
5e coddles to the "All Children Left Behind" generation who can't do math. Do you know how hard for a PC to die? Three Death Saves? Pfft, here, have a participation trophy with that.

Woke DnD? Racial Attribute modifiers are racist? So it is racist for Elves to have a high DEX and Dwarves to have a high CON? Really? is that what DnD has been reduced to? LMAO.