D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Imaro]

Even when they don't (see my post above) it can at least give them a different perspective on process. And it works both ways; if you have someone who mostly GMs it can pay to have them play once in a while to help keep perspective.

I don't necessarily disagree but as stated before, if someone knows something is not their cup of tea or really isn't interested in something, then I'm not going to try and get them to do it because I think it's going to benefit them... i.e. I know better then they do.

 

[Helldritch]

Au contraire. The very fact that it is successful and has sustained that success for quite some time is proof positive that it is, in general, good enough.

If it wasn't good enough it wouldn't be or remain nearly as successful.

For any such product there comes a tipping point where the flaws become too big to ignore, at which point either those flaws are fixed or the product (sometimes very quickly) ceases being successful. In both 2e and 3e what eventually became the too-big-to-ignore flaw was sheer bloat; I don't think 5e is anywhere near that point yet.

Yep, the success of 5ed is pretty much the best case for it being very, extremely good. Its success shows it to be so good that many knock offs are springing into existence and its influence is felt in many other games. OSR has existed way before 5ed, but 5ed raised the number of people actualy playing OSR. And OSR are not limited to only one type/product/company now. That in and of itself speaks again for 5ed. And right here, on this forum, we have Level Up. That is the sign of a very very successful game.

Where I disagree though, is the point of bloating. The amount of new subclasses, races and whatnot that are added each year to the game, though optional, are beggining to show that the 5ed might be reaching that point sooner than later. They are announcing a reedition of the three core books for 2024. An update such as this is never very far from a new edition; if 5ed follows the pattern of previous ones... 5ed might even be reaching the first half of its life's expectancy.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is why I shouldn't bother with the longer reply. I don't want a game, no matter what side of the screen I'm on where every decision is made by committee or the person at the table with the most forceful/persuasive personality (which is what often happens with committees).

Why in the world would that be what happens because the players have the option to argue the point and bypass the GM? I play with about as argumentative a group as you could ever find, and 90-95% of the time, they don't care to even say a word about most decisions I make. I'm perfectly willing to assume if 3 out of the five of them actually care to overrule me they might just have a reason.

This is why some fo the responses to some of the counters on this is to shake my head. It assumes that players are all so interested in their own self-interest that they'll grab the reins constantly for the smallest thing, or decide to disrupt flow just to do so. This shows a level of cynicism about the ability of groups to manage their own bounds without authority well beyond even my worst perceptions of typical human nature.

I simply don't think D&D would work as well, or be as successful if we didn't have a DM. You disagree. Not sure where else a "conversation" is going to go other than the two of us saying "you're wrong" and "no you are". My justification that it works? D&D has always had the DM that makes the final call, 5E doubled down on it and it's the most popular version ever. Your justification? Your opinion.

"Works" and "works best" are not synonyms. I've acknowledge the default is functional every time its come up. What I've argued is that the only defense of it being necessary, or even the best choice, is dependent on an assumption that in at least the majority of cases the game would go off the rails without it. And as I noted above, that requires a pretty cynical perception of players and their choices.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't necessarily disagree but as stated before, if someone knows something is not their cup of tea or really isn't interested in something, then I'm not going to try and get them to do it because I think it's going to benefit them... i.e. I know better then they do.

I think "get them to" is doing some heavy lifting here. I wouldn't pressure them, but I'd encourage them to try, at least for a short period.

 

[cbwjm]

This is not aimed at MGibster, I very much like the post. But it gives me something to ask my next question from.

Do those who don't like restricting races have the same expectations of new DMs to be open to everything, or do they get cut some slack?

("Thanks for DMing! We know you're still a bit nervous after running us through the starter adventurer with pre-gens, but it went great and we're here to help. Like we all said in the group chat, we love your idea of using Dark Sun based on that adaptation you found online and shared, it's super that module fits, and we're glad it will help you recapture some of the flavor of the novels you love so that you'll be more comfortable running it. The four of us have some characters ready that we've been drooling to play - Pure-blood Yuan-Ti , Kenku, Fairy, and Lizardfolk. We've got great backstories for our Oath of Vengeance Paladin, Arcane Trickster, Divine Soul Sorcerer, and Tempest Domain Cleric that should fit right in with your plans!")

Though I'm someone who does restrict races from time to time, whether new or not, I happily abide by the restrictions the DM puts in place. Even if that means I have to pick a new character concept, though I'll often not have a full idea of my character until the DM tells me about the campaign.

 

[Oofta]

Why in the world would that be what happens because the players have the option to argue the point and bypass the GM? I play with about as argumentative a group as you could ever find, and 90-95% of the time, they don't care to even say a word about most decisions I make. I'm perfectly willing to assume if 3 out of the five of them actually care to overrule me they might just have a reason.

This is why some fo the responses to some of the counters on this is to shake my head. It assumes that players are all so interested in their own self-interest that they'll grab the reins constantly for the smallest thing, or decide to disrupt flow just to do so. This shows a level of cynicism about the ability of groups to manage their own bounds without authority well beyond even my worst perceptions of typical human nature.



"Works" and "works best" are not synonyms. I've acknowledge the default is functional every time its come up. What I've argued is that the only defense of it being necessary, or even the best choice, is dependent on an assumption that in at least the majority of cases the game would go off the rails without it. And as I noted above, that requires a pretty cynical perception of players and their choices.

At least have some real world proof that it works and the game is successful. You have no defense of your opinion other than "Cuz I said so."

Who's right? Who knows. They have a winning formula, it's not going to change.

In other words "I'm right, you're wrong.". Can we just save a post or ten and assume your response will be "I'm right, you're wrong"?

 

[Filthy Lucre]

At least have some real world proof that it works and the game is successful. You have no defense of your opinion other than "Cuz I said so."

Who's right? Who knows. They have a winning formula, it's not going to change.

In other words "I'm right, you're wrong.". Can we just save a post or ten and assume your response will be "I'm right, you're wrong"?

I would never play D&D if there was no DM.

 

[Lanefan]

do you mean in general

Yes. It even says so in the post you quoted.

or only about the races as the general is good or at least functional but race selection and whether all classes a properly built is what is in question not the entire thing like most people will eat cheese pizza but that is because it is mostly fine.

In general, as in overall without reference to anything more specific.

 

[Stormonu]

This is not aimed at MGibster, I very much like the post. But it gives me something to ask my next question from.

Do those who don't like restricting races have the same expectations of new DMs to be open to everything, or do they get cut some slack?

("Thanks for DMing! We know you're still a bit nervous after running us through the starter adventurer with pre-gens, but it went great and we're here to help. Like we all said in the group chat, we love your idea of using Dark Sun based on that adaptation you found online and shared, it's super that module fits, and we're glad it will help you recapture some of the flavor of the novels you love so that you'll be more comfortable running it. The four of us have some characters ready that we've been drooling to play - Pure-blood Yuan-Ti , Kenku, Fairy, and Lizardfolk. We've got great backstories for our Oath of Vengeance Paladin, Arcane Trickster, Divine Soul Sorcerer, and Tempest Domain Cleric that should fit right in with your plans!")

Y’know, with the right background story, I bet that would actually fit Dark Sun. The Yuan-Ti Oath of Vengenence Paladin might be a Templar whose starting to look like their Dragon King. The Kenku Arcane Trickster might be an Aarakokra who stripped of their feathers for his tricky ways and defiling magic. The Fairy Divine Soul Sorcerer models a halfling who is using psionic wings and other psionic abilities. The Lizardfolk Tempest Domain Cleric may be a mutant from the wilds of Athas that’s an Air elemental cleric - or an uplifted shocker lizard….

 

[Lanefan]

I do personally tend to avoid highly curated D&D games for the simple reason that it implies a certain belongingness to the world that d&d doesn't really support that well. It's not a knock against the style, really, as i've said before, but if i'm playing an all-human game, i prefer something with a bit more meat on the bones for the whole 'being a part of society' deal- typically, a more robust skill system. A human in a human-centric game, IMO, should probably be able to call on people they know for things and have that be mechanically reflected, and d&d just isn't about that.

I agree with the bolded idea but disagree with the "mechanically-reflected" part; if the DM is doing her job well then mechanics are unnecessary and just get in everyone's way.