D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[Balesir]

Let me lay out a scenario pretty much what I'm talking about now and what Hussar is advocating.

Right now, the sorcerer in 3.5 is defaulted to a particular casting method (spontaneous). Without modification to the rules, I assume (as do all people playing in my game) that sorcerers use the rules in the PHB as written.

Then one day, a player joins who says "I want to be a sorcerer, but I want to use the spell points rules in Unearthed Arcana. Its an official D&D supplement so you should let me."

Now, I have a couple of options:
1.) Say no. I run my game using the PHB rules and I don't want to change them. If you want a point-caster, might I suggest psion?
2.) Say no. I may not even allow wizards and clerics (replacing them with mystics and sorcerers) to have a world where magic has a certain feel. Spell points might ruin that feel.
3.) Allow it after careful consideration as to how this changes magic in my game. Do I allow him this option? How does this change the fiction (if any) or the other casters (who weren't given this option; can they now switch?)
4.) Just say yes. What can it hurt?

This was actually one of the reasons I really liked 4E's "everything is core" - albeit I seem to have understood it differently to a number of folks.

One problem with 3.5 was that I had no idea if the spell points rules "option" was at all balanced with any of the other spellcasting systems. If I allowed it, would I be allowing a munchkin dominance to develop? The way I read 4E's "everything is core" was "everything is designed and tested to be balanced with everything else". This allowed me so much more freedom in selecting among those 4 it felt truly liberating.

Now, my preferred default is (4), absolutely. And with 4E I don't have to worry too much about the "What can it hurt?", which would have nagged at me with 3.x.

If, for some specific reason, I don't want spell points casters (or whatever) in a specific campaign, I'll say so up front. But the default is "play what you like".

 

[Remathilis]

This was actually one of the reasons I really liked 4E's "everything is core" - albeit I seem to have understood it differently to a number of folks.

One problem with 3.5 was that I had no idea if the spell points rules "option" was at all balanced with any of the other spellcasting systems. If I allowed it, would I be allowing a munchkin dominance to develop? The way I read 4E's "everything is core" was "everything is designed and tested to be balanced with everything else". This allowed me so much more freedom in selecting among those 4 it felt truly liberating.

Sadly, 4e did a pretty rough job with this, as evidence by the sheer amount of builds that needed the nerf-bat repeatedly applied to it. (Though to be fair, 3e had its fair share of offenders, I'ma looking at you polymorph).

Still, I can see why it was liberating. In AD&D, psionics, bards, monks, non-weapon proficiencies and kits were all optional (hell, all classes but the core 4 were labeled optional). In 3e, prestige classes were similarly "optional". Was there any "optional" rules in 4e? It seems paragon paths, epic destinies, themes, psionics, warforged, and epic levels were all expected and assumed, even if the DM didn't want them in his game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm mostly in agreement with Balesir here, but I've got a slightly different slant on the question that might be useful.

When our group is putting together a campaign, we talk it out, see what kind of characters will be played, pick a system, pick some obvious house rules/tweaks/supplements that we'll need, etc. However, then I go do something more or less like what Jeff Carlsen said. I do the setting, and the players do the characters. (Or I do both at the start, but then the players take over the characters. Pregen or not is a logistics questions for us.)



Yet, I find that having the tools laid out the way Balesir discusses makes it much easier for me to do this. It's for several reason, and I'm probably forgetting some:

• It makes communication in the early stages a lot easier for everyone. If we want to include X in the game, everyone knows exactly what that can mean.
• If the player wants a character concept that fits within the broad plan, it's usually clear how to get there.
• If the players want certain kinds of challenges, it's usually clear what they are asking for.

In 1E, I could more or less do the same thing ... but only because early we didn't care about this stuff, and then considerably later I was an experienced DM playing with experienced players. Everyone in the group knows what happens when you use psionics, or not, or partially, or whatever. I suppose some people got to that point with 3E, or low to mid-level 3E, or their subset of 3E or variant 3E. I never did, and even if I had, the players weren't anywhere close.

Our group isn't like it was 30 years ago. We want a system to perform for us mostly as expected, at least after the first several months of break-in play.

When playing D&D, we like me being responsible for the setting and the players responsible for the characters. If we want the whole group to be responsible for everything, we'll play any number of games that are far better than D&D will ever be, for that purpose. But fixing/adapting things that do not work for you is another category--neither character nor setting.

Given a good set of tools, it is very liberating. The group has collectively signed up for a vision that they understand. Now, that means they have delegated to me the authority to be a rat-bastard DM in pulling that off, within those broad parameters. Just because you theoretically can use every single monster in the MM in one campaign, doesn't make it a good idea. Functional options are always like that.

 

[Rechan]

Social Contract? Creative Agenda?? Arbitor of Ephemera??? That all sounds like a policy document I might see at work, not a game!

I've been reading a lot of @Manbearcat 's posts, and that's just how he talks: Very engineering or academic structured sentences, heavy on concepts and constructs.

Once I decoded what he's saying, I agree with him. The essence is everyone sits down and hashes out what the game's going to be about ("This is a S&S game set in Hyboria - Jeff, you don't know what that is? Let me clue you in on the genre specifics of sword & sorcery" "Would a warforged fit in?" "No") so they're on the same page. I recall a thread here where the DM said "OK we're going to play a zombie apocalypse game, I'm styling it strongly after The Walking Dead", and one player, not having seen the show or read the comics, assumed it was going to be a post-apoc madcap romp through zombieland, and completely borked a game about human drama and tension. Such a discussion would have avoided that.

There's also often collaborative character creation (so everyone's characters have tied backstories, instead of everyone making their character at home, showing up and no one having a reason to adventure with these other bozos).

It also clears up any expectations about DM style and table behavior ("No seriously Jeff, no attacking or undermining other characters this campaign.")

 

[CroBob]

I find it to be excellent for exactly this reason. A DM is - and is referred to often in the 1e DMG as - a referee. A referee in any sport or game is in charge of that game, period, end of story.

Being a referee means you interpret and enforce the rules, though. Making rules is not usually part of what a mere referee does, nor do they limit players from options which are allowed in the rules. I agree the DM is a referee, and I've played for DMs I've patently disagreed with, yet went along with simply because they were the DM and I didn't want to cause needless drama. That also doesn't mean they're super-god, though. I mean, if a football referee suddenly decided that he could tell people what to do or what not to do, even though what he's saying has little to nothing to do with the actual rules, he's overstepped his bounds.

 

[timASW]

Ye gads - whatever happened to "Hey guys, I've got a setting and some great adventures; who wants to play?"

Social Contract? Creative Agenda?? Arbitor of Ephemera??? That all sounds like a policy document I might see at work, not a game!

Lan-"my ephemera just arbitored its way into your shoulder for 8 points damage"-efan

No kidding. Sounds like D&D's HR department got together with a couple of lawyers and wrote a "equality in gaming" document. shudder.............

 

[Hussar]

I GET IT NOW. The DM in your worldview is just another player who has the responsibility of running monsters and NPCs. He doesn't have any authority to change the rules (house rule), or setting (beyond what's agreed on by the other players; IE lets use the Forgotten Realms). So you want maximum flexibility because you believe you have the same amount of authority in deciding the rules and setting as the DM (though being limited to a single character).

Umm, no? Where did I say that the DM doesn't have the authority to change the rules? What I said was that the authority to change the rules isn't contained in the books but rather, is granted to the DM by the TABLE. If you require the books to grant you that authority over the players, then you have much larger issues at your table than is ever going to be resolved by any amount of game books.

Ergo, the rules should allow (feasibly) any module to be available (be it mixing of casting types, simple/complex combat resolution, etc) to interact with each other without incident (A Vancian wizard and a mana-point wizard are fairly evenly balanced against one another, as would be someone using specialties and someone who ignores them), since the DM has no right to enforce a certain ruleset on your PC ("My campaign is OS: only vancian and no skills/feats").

Again, no. The DM most certainly can state that all wizards are Vancian in his campaign. If the players are groovy with that decision, then fine. What I don't want is WOTC dictating that all wizards are Vancian. See the difference?

This creates a horrible conundrum for the players when the game assumes a certain set of rules as default (such as "roll 4d6, drop the lowest") and then shunts others to the DMG as options (such as "point buy 28 points"). If you are the type who hates rolled PCs (you have bad die luck) and would rather the certainty of 28 points, then you are put in the position of having to "ask" the DM to use the alternate system in the DMG and the DM could say no, therefore exuding more power over you in the game. However, if all the systems are in the beginning of the PHB (ala 4e or SAGA) then all are equally valid and the DM can't tell you to use one over another for your PC.

amirite?

I'd point out that, in your example, both systems are actually presented in the PHB. No character generation rules are hidden behind the DM wall. Haven't been hidden since 2e either, as 2e had all the generation methods listed in the PHB. Been too long since I looked at 1e to know where the rolling methods were.

Let me lay out a scenario pretty much what I'm talking about now and what Hussar is advocating.

Right now, the sorcerer in 3.5 is defaulted to a particular casting method (spontaneous). Without modification to the rules, I assume (as do all people playing in my game) that sorcerers use the rules in the PHB as written.

Then one day, a player joins who says "I want to be a sorcerer, but I want to use the spell points rules in Unearthed Arcana. Its an official D&D supplement so you should let me."

Whoa. Stop right there. Note, I made a specific point that the systems, if they are going to be presented separately MUST be balanced against each other. Also note, I emphatically stated that the DM can rule out anything he likes. So, in your example here, as soon as the player says, "it's in an offical D&D supplement so you should let me", the player is being a douchebag.

Now, I have a couple of options:
1.) Say no. I run my game using the PHB rules and I don't want to change them. If you want a point-caster, might I suggest psion?
2.) Say no. I may not even allow wizards and clerics (replacing them with mystics and sorcerers) to have a world where magic has a certain feel. Spell points might ruin that feel.
3.) Allow it after careful consideration as to how this changes magic in my game. Do I allow him this option? How does this change the fiction (if any) or the other casters (who weren't given this option; can they now switch?)
4.) Just say yes. What can it hurt?

The current system (default X, option Y elsewhere) allows me these options. Hussar believes both systems should be presented side-by-side and that the player has the right to pick either of them as he chooses. He takes the choice of magic system away from me (as the DM) and claims it all for himself.

Nope. I take the choice of magic system away from WOTC and give it to the TABLE. If you can convince your players that your way is better, more power to you. I would certainly play in games where the DM decided that sort of thing. Not a problem.

Like lots of things, I think that choice should (at best) be a give-and-take between the DM and player. Much like ability scores (point buy or rolled) or other options (prestige classes, alternate class abilities, or UA variants) that should be a choice among all players and the DM. But it doesn't hurt to have a default method (rolled scores, vancian mages) for people who just want to play without careful debate on such matters.

But, there is no give and take in your way. There is only DM authority and player begging. "Oh please Mr. DM, if its not too much trouble, may I pretty please use something other than what you want?" No thanks. Make sure all the options are balanced and then, if the DM wants to enforce his will, make the DM do the work.

 

[Hussar]

Going to summarize for the tl:dr version above:

I do not want WOTC dictating to me what my campaign should look like. By setting down specific defaults, that's exactly what WOTC is doing. If I want to play D&D, by having these strong defaults, there is a basic expectation that those defaults are default for a reason and the other stuff isn't default for a reason.

Which means that it's always an uphill battle to try to not use those defaults.

Now, presuming that the rules mavens have done their job properly and the options are reasonably well balanced, in play it shouldn't make the slightest difference which option I choose. I won't hurt the game regardless of choice. Thus, choosing A or B is purely an aesthetic choice. I pick the one I like, and it won't hurt anything.

See, this is where all the examples are off base. The Half Dragon Warforged, or whatever, is obviously an example of the player being a douche. Easy fix to that. Don't play with douchebags. Simple enough.

What I would rather see is the mechanics simply present options. If the table decides that I get to wear the big daddy pants and make all the decisions, great. If the table wants more input, that's great too.

I certainly don't need WOTC telling my players that I'm in charge. I play with good enough people that we don't need anyone else playing policeman at the table. Why is it better to have WOTC tell your players how to play your game? Shouldn't that be your job as the DM?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Nope. I take the choice of magic system away from WOTC and give it to the TABLE. If you can convince your players that your way is better, more power to you. I would certainly play in games where the DM decided that sort of thing. Not a problem.

In a lot of tables, this particular thing doesn't matter. The players don't care. "Hey DM, you do your thing, and we'll play along."

So let's say that the rules are presented as Hussar has advocated. By definition, "Hey DM, do your thing," means, "look through the list of options and decide which ones are yes, no, or maybe." If you want to set a few defaults in the course of that, it's no big deal.

So, this only matters in two cases:

1. The DM or players or both want more convenient flexibility in the rules to play the game the way they want -- AKA WotC does the work here, instead of the people at the table, at making good tools--then the players and DM choose what they want.

2. One or more players is chafing at DM authority, and the DM feels like he needs back up -- AKA looking for the book to give you something it really can't give.

Now, outside of those, there is some marginal complexity and hassle added with options. This is true of any complex system with options. However, given that we've all been arguing about this stuff for years, with no apparent end in sight--and that Next is specifically aiming to be, if not all things to all people, at least something worthwhile to most people--then there are better way to solve that problem than picking defaults.

For example, given the set of options, it would be fairly trivial to dedicate 3-5 pages, or maybe some fine print in an appendix, to detailing "suggested defaults" for DMs that want to bypass the choosing of options. Have several versions for the more popular styles. Then provide copies as PDFs. So DM X wants to run a classic dungeon crawl, in AD&D 1E style. Point the players towards that page, and off you go.

It's not rocket science.

 

[Hussar]

Actually CJ, that's an excellent idea. I like that a lot. Here's a list of options with a sort of "DM's cookbook" in the back. That's a very cool idea.