D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Bedrockgames]

Huh? Nobody is saying anyone is saying that the proposed rules for social encounters would be core like skill challenges in 4E. We know you're talking about optional rules. You remind us in every other post.

So for the umpteenth time ... yes we know you're talking about optional rules. Has anyone anywhere on this thread contradicted this? You're making up imaginary accusations so, what, you can get upset about something that no one has said?

In my interactions with you, you appear consistent here. Most of our disagreement in fact has been me saying optional rules for this stuff is fine and you viewing optional rules for it as detracting from other areas the game should focus on

 

[Bedrockgames]

And that is, to me, the big secret of 5e. It does everything a little - and nothing particularly well. It allows but doesn't support things. Which is why more than any other edition I can recall except maybe 3.X (which had very different issues for DMs) you get "Forever DM" issues.

There are different ways this can be framed, and I am not a big 5E player or GM so most of my impression is from the books and from people I know who play it, but yes I think the aim of 5E was to draw in the most while offending the least, in order to be the mainstream RPG. I think when you are designing an RPG meant to be the biggest, that is a fair design approach and it seems to have worked. It was an enormously successful edition, and the people I know who play seem quite satisfied with it as editions go (it doesn't seem to have any of the kinds of complaints I started to see with 3E after that one was around a while, for example.

Again, I think putting out optional material is fine, and I frankly think they are moving in a different direction with 6E anyways (personally I don't have much interest in it at this point). So I think a lot of this discussion is just academic anyways.

 

[Oofta]

In my interactions with you, you appear consistent here. Most of our disagreement in fact has been me saying optional rules for this stuff is fine and you viewing optional rules for it as detracting from other areas the game should focus on

I have no problem with optional rules, because I can just ignore them if I want. But I'm also pragmatic; optional rules aren't free. Look at the naval combat rules as an example - a lot of people don't like them very much and there probably should have been a UA article about them with feedback and tweaks. How many people still want a "real" subsystem for psionics? Anybody can slap rules together, coming up with rules that don't interfere with other rules, that actually work for most people? That's more difficult and more expensive.

There's always going to be budgetary constraints and they are taking a more conservative approach to publications than previous editions. I simply don't see much demand for the optional rules, at least not with the people I play with.

 

[Minigiant]

I have no problem with optional rules, because I can just ignore them if I want. But I'm also pragmatic; optional rules aren't free. Look at the naval combat rules as an example - a lot of people don't like them very much and there probably should have been a UA article about them with feedback and tweaks. How many people still want a "real" subsystem for psionics? Anybody can slap rules together, coming up with rules that don't interfere with other rules, that actually work for most people? That's more difficult and more expensive.

There's always going to be budgetary constraints and they are taking a more conservative approach to publications than previous editions. I simply don't see much demand for the optional rules, at least not with the people I play with.

How many people wanted a whole chapter on plans ad useless planar mechanics that "anyone can slap together"?

One guy eating good, one guy starves.

D&D's strength was always mixing and matching optional rules, house rules, and homebrew to lean the game one playstyle or another.

The issue is and always has been:
Bias.
One guy eating good, one guy starves.

 

[Maxperson]

And that's just off the top of my head.

In fact, 5e is about the only edition of D&D to NOT have extensive systems for dealing with stuff outside of combat.

5e has extensive(if you're defining AD&D stronghold and henchman rules as extensive) out of combat systems for stuff outside of combat. You just have to adopt the Xanathar's downtime rules, which are ballpark(going by memory and not counting pages) the same size as AD&D stuff.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, yes. That's certainly true. If I want to get around the gatekeepers of D&D who insist that D&D supports all play styles, so long as I only want to free form, I certainly can go to 3rd party publishers to get my fix.

But, I have a serious suspicion that come the release of the 5e (2024) DMG, you are going to be REALLY disappointed when we get a book that actually delivers on the 2014 promise of modularity. We've already got Bastion rules. And the promise of the meatiest DMG ever. Do you really think they aren't going to add in all sorts of optional modules?

I liked the bastion rules, but like many others thought they were a good start that needed more work. Have they confirmed that the bastion rules made the cut? I've only sporadically been paying attention to the after voting interviews.

What do you think is going to be in that book?

Well, they have confirmed, "Mountains of new art." I'm not going to hold my breath on whether or not they are creating a lot more modules than we have seen in the playtest. I will be pleasantly surprised if we see a bunch of new modules to the point that their promise in 2014 is fulfilled.

 

[Maxperson]

See, @Bedrockgames, THIS is what I am talking about. At no point in this thread have I even HINTED at wanting to change the core game. Not once. Yet, here we are, hundreds of posts in, and I'm STILL having to correct people's mistaken interpretations and assumptions. I have REPEATEDLY stated that all I want is an optional module. Not one single time in this whole thread have I suggested any changes to the core game.

And you wonder why I'm a bit tetchy?

Yep. I've seen you say more than once that optional is just fine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I liked the bastion rules, but like many others thought they were a good start that needed more work. Have they confirmed that the bastion rules made the cut? I've only sporadically been paying attention to the after voting interviews.

Well, they have confirmed, "Mountains of new art." I'm not going to hold my breath on whether or not they are creating a lot more modules than we have seen in the playtest. I will be pleasantly surprised if we see a bunch of new modules to the point that their promise in 2014 is fulfilled.

New art and some reorganization, especially for the DMG. That's mostly it.

Please fork over your cash now.

 

[Oofta]

New art and some reorganization, especially for the DMG. That's mostly it.

Please fork over your cash now.

So you have a crystal ball and know exactly what will be released? This after years of complaints by numerous people about how bad the DMG is?

While you've been looking at the future, have any hot stock tips?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you have a crystal ball and know exactly what will be released? This after years of complaints by numerous people about how bad the DMG is?

While you've been looking at the future, have any hot stock tips?

It's my opinion, not prophecy. And the "changes" I'm suggesting are WotC fixing the DMG, from their point of view.