D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Micah Sweet]

You don’t see the problem with that?

No. Why would I?

 

[FrogReaver]

Let's just say I think that presumption is inaccurate.

Seemed like the most reasonable way to read their words at the time. But I’m good with it wasn’t their intent.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. Why would I?

Because in some sense it means the game designers failed. They’ve presented a bunch of options to you that don’t really work together. I’d much rather not have modular rules than have to piece together which combinations of them work together. Especially when the alternative is, I could probably just create the perfect rule alterations for my group on my own - and probably a good deal of those rules arent even covered in any given set of modular rules anyways

Again I’m for modular to the extent they can be combined together without much negative impact, but in practice that ends up being very limited modular design.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So one thing I suggested in one thread a while ago, was to give D&D something like the journey mechanic from Adventures in Middle-Earth. And if such a system existed, then I feel some classes, ranger in particular, should have features that interact with this system.

Similarly, if a complicated social combat mechanics existed, then I feel some classes, bard in particular, should have features that interact with it.

And once such integration to the classes is done, you no longer can easily just decide to not use the system, as you deprive classes of their features. Like if you decided not to use the combat subsystem a lot of features would become useless. Highly modular game would best work as a classless game, as then you could freely build the characters only with the building blocks that interact with the mechanics you intend to use. But that would cease to be recognisable D&D, and would greatly affect the ease of use.

Game design is a bit harder than a lot people here seem to think.

 

[FrogReaver]

As I mentioned with 4e, "ignoring" rules is a lot easier said than done. If you want to create custom car it's a lot easier to start with a baseline model than one that's already tricked out in a way you don't like. You have to spend as much time ripping out the stuff you don't like than building the stuff you do like.

Apparently they are just advocating for optional rules to do all this. Don’t even need to ignore it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because in some sense it means the game designers failed. They’ve presented a bunch of options to you that don’t really work together. I’d much rather not have modular rules than have to piece together which combinations of them work together. Especially when the alternative is, I could probably just create the perfect rule alterations for my group on my own - and probably a good deal of those rules arent even covered in any given set of modular rules anyways

Again I’m for modular to the extent they can be combined together without much negative impact, but in practice that ends up being very limited modular design.

I disagree. Options are good. Pick the ones you want, and discard the rest. Besides, you're assuming that all these options can't work together. Do you have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to suggest that they can't?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's why you pick a preferred playstyle for your game, and provide optional rules for other playstyles you'd like your game to potentially support. People who don't want those rules...don't use them.

The DMG does that. But not very well. And that's the thing, quite often 3PP or house rules are better than the official WotC rules (see: ships). I don't want to be paying WotC for rules I don't want. For me, D&D has always been about customisation and making the game what you want it to be. I don't want a curated list of optional rules, I just want the basics for me to do whatever I want with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The DMG does that. But not very well. And that's the thing, quite often 3PP or house rules are better than the official WotC rules (see: ships). I don't want to be paying WotC for rules I don't want. For me, D&D has always been about customisation and making the game what you want it to be. I don't want a curated list of optional rules, I just want the basics for me to do whatever I want with.

Actually, I agree. 3pp are way better at providing good optional rules. This is why I use a lot of 3pp. But I don't see them as more or less optional, or more or less valid, then anything in WotC 5e. Just often more to my taste.

 

[el-remmen]

If my PC has a Charisma score of 22 via levels and magic items, should I be allowed to attempt to convince an NPC of something even though I can't think of a logical argument.

Yes. An argument doesn't need to be logical to be persuasive. It could rely on pathos or shared values (ethos). It could also just be a timely argument.

If NPC Monster has a Charisma score of 22 via design, should the DM be allowed to attempt to convince the party to accept their surrender even through the DM doesn't know a logical argument..

See above.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd say no. You must have some argument. It can be pretty bad one though. It results a higher DC, but with your good scores you have still a decent chance of beating it.

But it's hour 3 into the session and my PC is INT 14. Can't I lean on my PC's big fat brain?

My answer is no, and not even if the GM comes up with an argument. I don't use social skills against PCs.* I say what the NPC would say and let the players make their mind about it

I get this one.for called checks, not secret/passive checks.

I do roll secret checks and match the NPCs speech with success or failure