D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[Paul Farquhar]

I take it you neither read much historical fiction nor play much D&D.

More than you.

D&D magic is every bit as distinctive as Harry Potter magic. And every bit as ridiculous and setting-bending.

And so are Brother Cadfael's forensic skills.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Then question "why the heck use pretty damn complex system" raises even more.

5e complex? I don't think so....

And the rules set the tone too. No escape from that.

Nope.

Outside of combat you don't really need any rules.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You could call what RPGs do evolution in the strict sense (change over time to suit the present circumstances, the way organisms and languages evolve), but it's not evolution in the colloquial sense (improvement over time, the way technology evolves). RPGs are not a "technology" in that regard. You can't say that 5th edition is better than 4th because it's newer. You can't say 1st edition is worse than 2nd because it's older. And if you do think that… that's, just, like, your opinion, man.

I don't know if you've heard of this little game called Cyberpunk 77 - and that it's recently come out full of bugs on console. I can't say that Cyberpunk 77 is better than Witcher 3, especially on 8th generation console, despite the fact that it came out more recently.

Not everything that's new is good and not everything that's bad is old. But RPGs, like most other things develop based on the ideas that others have produced and use their techniques.

Now please take that strawman of me thinking "newer is better" and put it with other strawmen.

Edition snobbery? Classy.

They were literally putting those books out with no playtesting. I didn't say the edition was bad - but I stand by the deluge of splatbooks for 2e routinely being shovelware. After all I owned a number of the silly things. I have also literally never heard anyone even who liked 2e say that that's what they liked about it.

Every edition works without casters.

For some value of "works".

 

[Oofta]

D&D is just a set of rules on how to resolve conflicts and overcome obstacles. The majority of the rules are combat related, but not all. But you could strip out all magic from the game and there is still the basis for a functional game.

I'm not saying I would do it. But it has been done for previous editions and I don't see any reason we couldn't do it now. The rules give you default fluff and guidance, but pretty much every game I've been involved with changes and tweaks assumptions here and there.

To scrap the metaphor, let's be realistic. D&D is by far the most common RPG played; many times when people try to use it for things way beyond its competency, it's because they are unaware there are options that are more suited to their desired play. Trying to help them out by giving them better options is a nice thing to do.

If they say "I've researched other options, and I think a stripped down D&D works best for me because I'm familiar with it and can make it work" then that's fine, of course. But plenty of people may not be aware of the myriad of other options.

And some DMs may be well aware that there are other systems out there but decide to use D&D as a foundation anyway. Who am I to question if it works for them? There are options like Esper Genesis for running science fantasy games which according to several people works fairly well.

 

[Neonchameleon]

5e complex? I don't think so....

Yes, of course. There aren't three core 320 page rulebooks.

It's simpler than either 3.X or AD&D. But that still makes it fairly weighty.

Outside of combat you don't really need any rules.

You don't need any rules inside of combat either. You can just use DM fiat or rock paper scissors the way the WoD LARP at least used to.

On the other hand rules can be useful. Which is in many cases why we use them. There's no real in combat/out of combat split here.

 

[loverdrive]

Outside of combat you don't really need any rules.

Lol, no. A good set of rules pushes the game forward in a desired direction.

Take Blades in the Dark, for example. By just following the rules you get a game about daring avanteurists -- heck, you can't not get a such game even if you try. Can't say the same about emulating historical fiction and D&D.

Alsoo... Are you implying that combat mechanics don't shape tone?

 

[Oofta]

My personal preference is to have minimal rules for activities outside of combat. I don't want, nor do I need, rules for interacting with the rule at large other than the occasional ability skill check.

 

[prabe]

Take Blades in the Dark, for example. By just following the rules you get a game about daring avanteurists -- heck, you can't not get a such game even if you try. Can't say the same about emulating historical fiction and D&D.

I dunno. Looking at the SRD it looked like a game of hapless addicts (of various sorts) being inevitaby ground to dust by ambitions that exceed their grasp. Tomayto, tomahto, I guess.

 

[loverdrive]

I dunno. Looking at the SRD it looked like a game of hapless addicts (of various sorts) being inevitaby ground to dust by ambitions that exceed their grasp. Tomayto, tomahto, I guess.

That's just the price of leaving in the Dusk (=

But, anyway, flashbacks and reputation system naturally lead to daring plans and striking targets that are way beyond the league of PCs gang.

 

[prabe]

That's just the price of leaving in the Dusk (=

But, anyway, flashbacks and reputation system naturally lead to daring plans and striking targets that are way beyond the league of PCs gang.

And playing the game intelligently would mean picking on targets that no one else cares about and eschewing any benefits that result in becoming better known, and making enough money to retire without any of the Great Powers knowing you ever existed.