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

[Hussar]

I look forward to playing my fiendish half-dragon warforged samurai/gunslinger who dual-wields a shotgun and lightsaber in your campaign!

Funny how everything gets taken to an extreme. If we allow players the option of choosing to play a character they actually want to play, they'll automatically break the game and violate genre. Just can't possibly trust those pesky players.

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.

Sort of. A referee is in charge of the rules and that is all. The referee cannot, for example, tell a team that they may not use a particular player, just because that player is too good, or too bad. The referee interprets the rules, but never gets to write them.

I have no use whatsoever for those who see the DM as nothing but a living breathing server running a MMORPG without the 'O' part. But that's where the culture of ever-increasing player entitlement will lead, and going by some things I've read on this site I'd say it's already got there at some tables.

But, if you truly believe that the DM is a referee, then he is nothing but a living breathing server. After all, that's what a server does, doesn't it? Simply interprets input, nothing more. A referee does not get to do anything more than what a computer program does in an MMO.

That's a not-necessarily-correct assumption, that the relationship will automatically be (or become) antagonistic; and if it does it speaks more to the people involved than the system itself.

Lanefan

How can anyone read the 1e DMG and not come to that conclusion? Gygax specifically, numerous times, tells DM's how and when they should screw over their players. Reread the section on listening at doors. Or the section on discovering secret doors. Or a number of other sections as well. It's not like I'm making this up. There are numerous very clear lines on how the game should be played, and it's certainly not a cooperative one.

I look at it this way. If you need the rules of the game to give you, the DM, the authority at your table to do whatever it is you want to do at that table, your game has much, much larger issues than any rule book can ever resolve.

 

[timASW]

I mean, to give an example, I have a fantastic player who really digs into her characters. She also loathes Vancian casting. To the point where, while she often plays casters, she'll take anything BUT a straight up Vancian caster. So, if she was the putative player in our little example, I'd have zero problem letting her run with it. I trust my players. I know that they are very creative people who are just as interested as having a good time as I am. I think the rules should presuppose that, rather than the traditional antagonistic relationship featured in earlier D&D advice.

so make it part of the character. AKA "you set out to be a wizard but being unhappy with the rigours of traditional learning sought out the mysteries of the cosmos on your own. During which you were contacted by a powerful outsider who offered to help you get over the difficulties you were encountering by doing it your own way (turns out the vancians do it that way for a reason.....) "

Or go with the 4e approach "your warlock is called a wizard, use all the warlock stats and powers, but call her a wizard, its only fluff"

 

[Hussar]

so make it part of the character. AKA "you set out to be a wizard but being unhappy with the rigours of traditional learning sought out the mysteries of the cosmos on your own. During which you were contacted by a powerful outsider who offered to help you get over the difficulties you were encountering by doing it your own way (turns out the vancians do it that way for a reason.....) "

Or go with the 4e approach "your warlock is called a wizard, use all the warlock stats and powers, but call her a wizard, its only fluff"

But why should I have to? Why do you get what you want, which means that I have to do all the work to strip things out?

I mean, sure, I can do that. Of course I can. Been doing it for years. But, why not make that the baseline? How is it better that I strip out the flavor or you, as DM, state, "In my campaign all Wizards use Vancian casting"?

Why does WOTC have to state, "The default for D&D is Wizards use Vancian casting"? How is that easier or better? Why not showcase flexibility?

 

[timASW]

But why should I have to? Why do you get what you want, which means that I have to do all the work to strip things out?

I mean, sure, I can do that. Of course I can. Been doing it for years. But, why not make that the baseline? How is it better that I strip out the flavor or you, as DM, state, "In my campaign all Wizards use Vancian casting"?

Why does WOTC have to state, "The default for D&D is Wizards use Vancian casting"? How is that easier or better? Why not showcase flexibility?

Because thats what the class DOES. The same reason that fighters hit things, barbarians rage and rogues sneak around wizards memorize spells.

Its what they do. Dont like it? Play a different class. Theres lots of them.

But what your proposing is akin to having a player say "I want to be Bork the raging barbarian but I also want to be a rhodes scholar whose teaching physics to the barbarian tribes with his fantastic illusion spells as teaching aids"

D20 must have 100 classes or more by this point. Pick one that actually does what you want to do. But no you cant re-write existing classes just because one player happens to have a hard on for the NAME of that class.

 

[Hussar]

A thought before I head out.

I have yet to see a very compelling argument for including default casting types with specific classes. The only argument I'm seeing (and maybe I missed something) is that by having defaults, it grants the DM some sort of authority to use those defaults at the table.

Me, I'd rather see something like this: Present the caster classes - wizard, warlock, whatever. Class determines some of the larger elements of the character - hit dice, access to certain options (like expertise dice, or casting etc) and whatnot. The presentation of that class focuses on what that class is - a wizard is an arcane sage, searching for the mysteries of the universe - that sort of thing. At the end of the classes, it tells you to choose a casting style based on what you, in consultation with the DM, envision for this character.

There, done. Add in that little bit about asking your DM before going ahead and you're golden. By forcing defaults, you give the impression that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to play a class. Wizards are Vancian by default, meaning that every other wizard is optional, and thus not as "right". Plus, it makes supplements a lot more interesting. If Vancian Wizard is default, then every published wizard has to be Vancian unless there's a really good reason why it isn't.

I prefer flexibility. If all the systems are balanced, then it shouldn't matter which caster I play. So long as the DM is groovy, I should be able to play whatever flavour of wizard I want. Max flexibility for minimum fuss. Seems like a win to me.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Hussar, I am sympathetic to your point of view but I think that you're going to be banging your head against your philosophical position outlined above throughout the entirety of both the playtest process and then with the finished product. It is quite clear that the core system is going to be (primarily) predicated upon legacy constructs, form before function (not the absence of function...but form first), and a simulationist agenda with a smattering of new ideas (bounded accuracy, Ability Scores as saves, etc) and some streamlining. Every editorial they have written and every piece of playtest material points in this direction. Do you not think this is true? It seems that asking them to "undefault" Vancian casting for Wizards, rather than making sure that they understand that (i) you want to be able to un-plug the Vancian system and (ii) seamlessly plug in a fully QCed <spell points, AEDU, etc> module, is a battle already lost.

It is guaranteed that you are going to have to heavily mod your 5e game to get what you want. Same thing with me. I'm, at this point, just focusing my thoughts on what mods would be necessary to re-create and "betterize" my game of choice. If those do not exist, and/or the core is incompatible (eg too much simulationist agenda embedded in the engine), then I will move on. There certainly are viable competitors out there.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Funny how everything gets taken to an extreme. If we allow players the option of choosing to play a character they actually want to play, they'll automatically break the game and violate genre. Just can't possibly trust those pesky players.

How is this broken? Assuming the system is decently balanced, this shouldn't break anything at all! If the Gunslinger is anything like the Pathfinder one, then it won't be breaking any game. Guns are less effective then magic or even good arrows. Remember, shotguns are not effective long range weapons. And how does the system represent being fiendish and half-dragon? If it's like 3.5, it'll be done through templates. Those two templates will cost you 3 characters levels, which is a lot! Or you could do it with tons of feats.

 

[Sunseeker]

How is this broken? Assuming the system is decently balanced, this shouldn't break anything at all! If the Gunslinger is anything like the Pathfinder one, then it won't be breaking any game. Guns are less effective then magic or even good arrows. Remember, shotguns are not effective long range weapons. And how does the system represent being fiendish and half-dragon? If it's like 3.5, it'll be done through templates. Those two templates will cost you 3 characters levels, which is a lot! Or you could do it with tons of feats.

Exactly, which is entirely the point. We should give players the ability to be creative and hell, be their own special snowflakes if they want to. DM's always have the power to say "NO!" but that doesn't mean they should, or always will. Giving players a range of concepts and bases to start with may mean they think playing something crazy is cool, but it may also give them creative ideas for playing something less crazy, in a really cool manner.

I know there's been plenty of times in my writing when I toned down the "obvious" crazy in exchange for more subtle crazy.

I mean what's scarier, a fiendish half-dragon elf psychopath?

Or a regular elf who thinks they're going to become a feindish half-dragon by devouring the flesh of their murder victims?

On the one hand, we have a scary guy killing people.

On the other hand, we have a scary guy killing people...who might just actually be right.

 

[Lanefan]

Funny how everything gets taken to an extreme. If we allow players the option of choosing to play a character they actually want to play, they'll automatically break the game and violate genre.

Until that character gets itself killed off in session 3...

Sort of. A referee is in charge of the rules and that is all. The referee cannot, for example, tell a team that they may not use a particular player, just because that player is too good, or too bad. The referee interprets the rules, but never gets to write them.

But, if you truly believe that the DM is a referee, then he is nothing but a living breathing server. After all, that's what a server does, doesn't it? Simply interprets input, nothing more. A referee does not get to do anything more than what a computer program does in an MMO.

A referee can do what neither a rulebook nor a computer can do, and that is exercise judgment.

And a referee *can* tell a team it cannot use a particular player, if for whatever reason (usually determined by the rules, league, or whatever) said player is ineligible to play in that game.

How can anyone read the 1e DMG and not come to that conclusion? Gygax specifically, numerous times, tells DM's how and when they should screw over their players. Reread the section on listening at doors. Or the section on discovering secret doors. Or a number of other sections as well. It's not like I'm making this up. There are numerous very clear lines on how the game should be played, and it's certainly not a cooperative one.

He's trying to empasize that it is the DM's job to make life difficult for the adventurers...which it is.

I look at it this way. If you need the rules of the game to give you, the DM, the authority at your table to do whatever it is you want to do at that table, your game has much, much larger issues than any rule book can ever resolve.

As time goes on it seems the rules are becoming more and more bent on taking that authority away; and that's the issue that - I think - started this branch of the discussion in the first place.

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

@Hussar, I am sympathetic to your point of view but I think that you're going to be banging your head against your philosophical position outlined above throughout the entirety of both the playtest process and then with the finished product. It is quite clear that the core system is going to be (primarily) predicated upon legacy constructs, form before function (not the absence of function...but form first), and a simulationist agenda with a smattering of new ideas (bounded accuracy, Ability Scores as saves, etc) and some streamlining. Every editorial they have written and every piece of playtest material points in this direction. Do you not think this is true? It seems that asking them to "undefault" Vancian casting for Wizards, rather than making sure that they understand that (i) you want to be able to un-plug the Vancian system and (ii) seamlessly plug in a fully QCed <spell points, AEDU, etc> module, is a battle already lost.

It is guaranteed that you are going to have to heavily mod your 5e game to get what you want. Same thing with me. I'm, at this point, just focusing my thoughts on what mods would be necessary to re-create and "betterize" my game of choice. If those do not exist, and/or the core is incompatible (eg too much simulationist agenda embedded in the engine), then I will move on. There certainly are viable competitors out there.

Yeah, I know. It's an uphill battle. One can always hope. Mechanically, we're seeing lots of innovation - and WOTC seems pretty determined to "stealth in" a lot of 4e'isms under the radar. I guess the only way they can move the game forward is by doing it under the cover of "well, look at all this legacy stuff!" Bit sad really.

Lanefan - a referee isn't telling a team that a player may not play. The league might, or the rules (for whatever reason) might, but, if a referee tried to tell a team that its starting quarterback can't play, well, good luck with that.

So, no. While ref's exercise judgement, they are still absolutely bound by the rules of the game. They don't get to rewrite the rules. Ever. And ref's that go beyond simple judgements usually aren't ref's for very long.

So, yeah, I totally agree that a DM should be a rules arbiter (referee). But, I'm thinking that your definition of what a ref does and my definition are not quite the same.