D&D 5E What is Quality?

[Mort]

I think the real problem is that Inspiration doesn't really do enough. It's nice but quite often you will already have advantage on key rolls.

Over reliance on advantage is an issue.

For, example, my group started with but immediately dropped the flanking rules because, advantage, already easy to get, became absurdly easy.

 

[delericho]

"Enhance." "Adapt." These are not terms that are used for a rule that one finds to be good, but one that is a problem. It may not be a showstopping problem, but it's not working properly and needs to be addressed.

That's not universally true.

My example: There's absolutely nothing wrong with the rule that ties Cleric Domains to individual deities. Nothing at all - indeed, I'm not sure if I've ever seen anyone mention it as an issue at all ever. And yet we've house-ruled it to allow a Cleric of any deity to choose any Domain they can link, no matter how tenuously.

There's no issue with the rule. And yet we've changed it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No,

The mechanic itself is good but is a problem because, as is, it's hard to implement (and here's how to fix that) - is quite different from "it's fine."

There's a BIG difference between "it's fine because I have a house rule," and "it's flawed, but here's a house rule to fix it."

The first does not acknowledge a problem/issue, the second does.

I'm having a very hard time reconciling "it's good" and "it's flawed, but here's a house rule to fix it" applying to the same mechanic. When someone says "it's good" I do not immediately include the latter statement as what is intended -- and this is the point I'm making. There's a reflexive move to soft-pedal any issue and make sure that you can't be viewed as overly critical of the system. So we get "it's fine/good/works, but here's a houserule I use" with the statement "because it's not good/fine/works for me" being hidden.

 

[Helldritch]

"Enhance." "Adapt." These are not terms that are used for a rule that one finds to be good, but one that is a problem. It may not be a showstopping problem, but it's not working properly and needs to be addressed. This is the form of "no problem, but here's my houserule" that argues that to be a problem the rules has to be clearly broken and unusable. If it just clunks it's not a problem; it just needs a hand.

Nahhhhh...
A rule can be perfectly valid as is. But if a table uses optional rules to make thing "deadlier" as we do. The rule needs a bit of a tweak. If we were to play the game right from the bat as presented in the PHB, we would not change one IOTA of that rule. But since we do play with optional rules (found in the DMG) we had to adapt the concentration rule to reflect our choices.
In our Friday Night Dungeon (exhibit at our hobby store), we play the concentration rule exactly as presented in the PHB. This is a must as we present the game as it is presented in the PHB so that every attendant will be able to relate to how we play. In our "normal" games however, we changed the concentration rule a wee bit to allow some spells to be a little bit more lethal while respecting the intent.

This is in complete opposition with, let's say... the beast master. Even in our exhibit, we found that the beast master companion was worthless. So we changed how the companion would play. Now ordering the companion is a bonus action and the companion will carry out the order until either the order can not be applied anymore (the target is dead) or a new order is issued. This leaves the ranger with his bonus action free on subsequent rounds. This is an example of a rule that clearly did not worked out as intended. TCoE pick on the beast master is not to our tastes so we kept our rule.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I'm having a very hard time reconciling "it's good" and "it's flawed, but here's a house rule to fix it" applying to the same mechanic. When someone says "it's good" I do not immediately include the latter statement as what is intended -- and this is the point I'm making. There's a reflexive move to soft-pedal any issue and make sure that you can't be viewed as overly critical of the system. So we get "it's fine/good/works, but here's a houserule I use" with the statement "because it's not good/fine/works for me" being hidden.

You are confusing "Perfect" with "Good".

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's not universally true.

My example: There's absolutely nothing wrong with the rule that ties Cleric Domains to individual deities. Nothing at all - indeed, I'm not sure if I've ever seen anyone mention it as an issue at all ever. And yet we've house-ruled it to allow a Cleric of any deity to choose any Domain they can link, no matter how tenuously.

There's no issue with the rule. And yet we've changed it.

No, I'd say there's absolutely something wrong with it at your table, hence why you've chosen to change it. If there was actually nothing wrong with it, you wouldn't have changed it.

I think the argument you're trying to make is that you believe it's perfectly fine for most other tables. I don't find that particularly useful, though, because it involves guessing. Probably a good guess, but if the general statement is that the rules is fine and good, someone with a dislike might not think they should change it. Actually pointing out where you do have a problem and why instead of pasting a "good, but we made some changes -- not because it's bad but because we thought we liked it better this other way" helps more to allow people to make their own judgements. For example, I look at your rule and have no problems with it. I like it even, because I don't want to proscribe choices with setting material. But, if I did want to proscribe choices (a valid approach), then I would not like this rule and the existing rule would be better. So, "just fine" doesn't really seem to apply here unless we step back and review if the objective that this rule is accomplishing what we want from our game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You are confusing "Perfect" with "Good".

I assure you I am not. Good has a strong connotation of "not a problem." If that's my error, I plan to continue making it.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I assure you I am not. Good has a strong connotation of "not a problem." If that's my error, I plan to continue making it.

So, in your lexicon, Good cannot become Better?

 

[delericho]

No, I'd say there's absolutely something wrong with it at your table, hence why you've chosen to change it.

What happened was a player asked "can I do this?", and I shrugged and said "yeah, whatever." I mean, I could have said "no, the rules say...", but I was overruled by my apathy.

I'm not really sure how that can be argued as there being something wrong with the rule as written.

I think the argument you're trying to make is that you believe it's perfectly fine for most other tables.

It's perfectly fine for all tables, including mine.

 

[Campbell]

Even if a particular mechanic works for the type of game you are looking to play if it is a pain point for someone else for the type of game they are trying to play saying it is not an issue is deeply unhelpful.

When there is a lack of alignment between the game we want to play and the game we are playing we can adjust our technique, the rules, the game or our expectations.

When you say something is not an issue you are fundamentally saying the person experiencing the pain point needs to change their desires. It shows a complete lack of empathy for the lack of game/group alignment they are currently experiencing.