D&D 5E The "General Nature" of a Trap

[Reynard]

They give super-precise descriptions for those things that they know almost all players agree on. We all know how a lighting bolt is supposed to go, so they straight up tell us in the description. But trying to regulate stealth, traps, tracking, negotiation, stuff like that? Everyone runs their games differently regardless of whatever the books may or may not say... so they don't bother giving a super-precise ruling. Basic ruling for all new players and DMs is what they give.. like for instance the "Influence" action they've highlighted... which is a fine simplistic system for those that need it but can be easily ignored or expanded upon by veteran players who already have their formatted rulings from years (if not decades) of playing.

You are apologizing for them not doing their job.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They give super-precise descriptions for those things that they know almost all players agree on. We all know how a lighting bolt is supposed to go, so they straight up tell us in the description. But trying to regulate stealth, traps, tracking, negotiation, stuff like that? Everyone runs their games differently regardless of whatever the books may or may not say... so they don't bother giving a super-precise ruling. Basic ruling for all new players and DMs is what they give.. like for instance the "Influence" action they've highlighted... which is a fine simplistic system for those that need it but can be easily ignored or expanded upon by veteran players who already have their formatted rulings from years (if not decades) of playing.

The kind of people the 5.5 DMG is not intended for, right?

 

[DEFCON 1]

You are apologizing for them not doing their job.

You do not get to determine what is and what isn't them doing their job. I've seen a number of your threads you've created recently with you complaining about what you found in the 5E24 books (which of course makes me wonder why you even bothered to buy them in the first place)... and I can say that a lot of the stuff that you thought was a requirement for the game was a bunch of crap that I do not care one whit about. So your opinion of what is or isn't what WotC should be doing is not in any way correct. So don't tell me I'm "apologizing" for WotC, because what I'm actually doing is telling you that your opinions are not fact.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The kind of people the 5.5 DMG is not intended for, right?

I am not sure which people you are referencing with your comment-- the new players or the veterans? All new DMGs are primarily meant for new DMs, because veteran DMs already own one, two, four, six previous DMGs that they've collected over however many decades so they don't need to be retaught how to DM again.

 

[Reynard]

You do not get to determine what is and what isn't them doing their job. I've seen a number of your threads you've created recently with you complaining about what you found in the 5E24 books (which of course makes me wonder why you even bothered to buy them in the first place)... and I can say that a lot of the stuff that you thought was a requirement for the game was a bunch of crap that I do not care one whit about. So your opinion of what is or isn't what WotC should be doing is not in any way correct. So don't tell me I'm "apologizing" for WotC, because what I'm actually doing is telling you that your opinions are not fact.

I mean, you are certainly allowed to disagree with me, but frankly I don't think you are in any position to state what is good or right.

Why did I buy the 2024 books? Because I wanted to know what was in them. Amm I allowed to say what I think about what was in them? Yes.

The "ignore" button is right there. If you can't deal with me, or anyone else, suggesting that WotC didn't bat 1000, just click the button. But don't pretend that you are "right." There is no "right ". There is only what we believe and feel.

I have never said that 2024 D&D was bad. I have expressed disappointment that over what they chose to focus on, and I have (rightly I think) expressed issues with the poor organization, but I have never decried the game in general.

If you can't deal with other people judging WotC, that's a you problem. Get over it. It's going to happen with every release.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am not sure which people you are referencing with your comment-- the new players or the veterans? All new DMGs are primarily meant for new DMs, because veteran DMs already own one, two, four, six previous DMGs that they've collected over however many decades so they don't need to be retaught how to DM again.

Excellent point. One reason why the only thing I regret about not buying the 5.5 DMG is missing out on the full Bastion rules, which I would love to tear apart and make use of in my own homebrew.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If you can't deal with other people judging WotC, that's a you problem. Get over it. It's going to happen with every release.

Your last statement wasn't you judging WotC... it was you judging ME. That I was "apologizing" for the method WotC chose to make their books. So yeah, my response was perfectly acceptable.

I don't put people on ignore because more often than not people have interesting things to say in all kinds of threads when they aren't just complaining about WotC's choices based on what they think the game HAS to have to be good, even though their feelings on the matter are by no means universal (but they act as though they are.) But if they choose to treat me like a mindless shill... I will respond in kind.

 

[Reynard]

Your last statement wasn't you judging WotC... it was you judging ME. That I was "apologizing" for the method WotC chose to make their books. So yeah, my response was perfectly acceptable.

I don't put people on ignore because more often than not people have interesting things to say in all kinds of threads when they aren't just complaining about WotC's choices based on what they think the game HAS to have to be good, even though their feelings on the matter are by no means universal (but they act as though they are.) But if they choose to treat me like a mindless shill... I will respond in kind.

You got angry at me for what I said about WotC. I don't know why you think I should shrug and accept that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Excellent point. One reason why the only thing I regret about not buying the 5.5 DMG is missing out on the full Bastion rules, which I would love to tear apart and make use of in my own homebrew.

You're better off getting MCDM's Strongholds & Followers. More in-depth and tactically expansive that the basic Bastion rules in the new DMG.

Like most things WotC tends to include... the Bastion rules are fine for a baseline idea of how to run buildings and such in D&D (just like Ghosts of Saltmarsh had very basic ship combat rules in it) but few people would say they were all that involved or necessarily compelling for veteran players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're better off getting MCDM's Strongholds & Followers. More in-depth and tactically expansive that the basic Bastion rules in the new DMG.

Like most things WotC tends to include... the Bastion rules are fine for a baseline idea of how to run buildings and such in D&D (just like Ghosts of Saltmarsh had very basic ship combat rules in it) but few people would say they were all that involved or necessarily compelling for veteran players.

Fair enough. I have Strongholds and Followers actually, although the core of my 5e system is Level Up's stronghold rules from Trials and Treasures. Maybe I should incorporate more of Colville's work.