Oofta
Legend
I mean ... why are the edition fights in D&D so vicious?
Because the stakes are so low.
C'mon. You wanna like One Edition? One Direction? One Bard to RULE THEM ALL? SPLITTER!!!
![]()
I mean ... why are the edition fights in D&D so vicious?
Because the stakes are so low.
C'mon. You wanna like One Edition? One Direction? One Bard to RULE THEM ALL? SPLITTER!!!
![]()
It when the hair on their back is as thick as on their chests!Well, here is an example if you're curious:
Last night a PC in my game failed his save and is afflicted by Lycanthropy. Now, I know he has it due to the failed save, and I know a remove curse can get rid of it, but there is nothing in the rules about anything more. This is all there is:
View attachment 261891
How do they know they're afflicted? They need to know before they can choose to resist or embrace.
What about changing before the full moon? Can they resist it before then when the moon is full, or is it just the full moon? How many days is that?
Now, I can answer these questions easily myself, but for a newer DM I can see how they might feel a bit lost and wonder where are the rest of the rules on this? Is it in the DMG? Nope--nothing there I've ever seen.
So, while the rules for contracting and removing lycanthropy are there, the rest is missing and left up to the DM.
There is no group that plays it and does not join to dots with houserules.
I don't think you (general you) need such things spelled out for you. Obviously, miles may vary, but the rules presented are more than enough for me and everyone I've played with. Looking at the number of people who play 5e, I think it's obvious that it is playable RAW.The trick is, this isn't obvious from a player's perspective. It's the DM-facing part of the game that is incomplete.
For example: under what circumstances do I, as DM, frame a new scene? How 'hard' can I frame it, and what do I take into account when doing so? This is really basic stuff you can't play the game without, and the rules don't, as far as I can tell, really say anything about it.
Then there's stuff like the entire exploration 'pillar', including travel, weather, wandering monsters, etc. These things 'exist' in the game text, but there are no clear procedures for actually bringing them into play.
This really was intentional, but probably not quite to the extent it became. The goal of 5E (D&D Next) was to create a game with the broadest appeal possible. To do this, it required a solid chassis that can be tweaked and modded by each DM/group to fit their preferred style, since there were serious edition wars over different styles of play. During the playtest, the divides deepened, so much so they had to shut down the D&D Forums. This meant that to appease all sides, they had to keep the base rules as generic as possible, believing that each side would adjust to play their preferred style (not realizing the deep desire of RAW had settled into most players). Unfortunately, this left a lot of gaps, since to clarify them would offend one group or another, potentially driving away customers.LOL Hardly! 5E is the first edition IMO which has HUGE "gaps" in the rules and feels like the designers simply expect groups to fill in those gaps themselves.
I'm not making any judgement about whether you need the game text to spell this stuff out in order to play. I'm just saying, this stuff doesn't exist in 5th ed. Generally, people substitute procedures from older editions, or stuff they've learned online.Raises hand...
I don't think you (general you) need such things spelled out for you. Obviously, miles may vary, but the rules presented are more than enough for me and everyone I've played with. Looking at the number of people who play 5e, I think it's obvious that it is playable RAW.
This is really fascinating to me. Would you mind giving me some pointers as to where to look to learn more, or maybe expand on it a bit?During the playtest, the divides deepened, so much so they had to shut down the D&D Forums.
One man's "generic as possible" is another's "I can run the game the way I, and my group, want". Previous editions had ever increasing "thou shalt run the game this way". It didn't work for me, it didn't work for a lot of people I know. D&D does not need to be run exactly the same at every table. I'm glad we have rulings over rules.This really was intentional, but probably not quite to the extent it became. The goal of 5E (D&D Next) was to create a game with the broadest appeal possible. To do this, it required a solid chassis that can be tweaked and modded by each DM/group to fit their preferred style, since there were serious edition wars over different styles of play. During the playtest, the divides deepened, so much so they had to shut down the D&D Forums. This meant that to appease all sides, they had to keep the base rules as generic as possible, believing that each side would adjust to play their preferred style (not realizing the deep desire of RAW had settled into most players). Unfortunately, this left a lot of gaps, since to clarify them would offend one group or another, potentially driving away customers.
The game cannot be played without what, now? Because seems like millions of people, many who have never touched an RPG before in their life, are playing just fine.I'm not making any judgement about whether you need the game text to spell this stuff out in order to play. I'm just saying, this stuff doesn't exist in 5th ed. Generally, people substitute procedures from older editions, or stuff they've learned online.
You absolutely are joining the dots when you do that, though. The game literally cannot be played without it.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I know of no game that doesn't require "connecting the dots" in this manner. Not in the sense that every game needs houserules, but ttrpgs involve individuals interpreting both rules and fictional positioning. If I'm running 5e, I have to make a judgement call on setting a DC, and sometimes a table of suggested DCs would be nice. If I'm running Blades in the Dark, it's up to me to set position and effect and figure out what a "complication" might look like if a roll comes up as a 4 or 5. If anything, the latter is more difficult and requires more connecting-of-dots as a GM.I would submit that 5e as written absolutely is incomplete, to the extent that it's actually unplayable. There is no group that plays it and does not join to dots with houserules. The trick is, this isn't obvious from a player's perspective. It's the DM-facing part of the game that is incomplete.
For example: under what circumstances do I, as DM, frame a new scene? How 'hard' can I frame it, and what do I take into account when doing so? This is really basic stuff you can't play the game without, and the rules don't, as far as I can tell, really say anything about it.
DMG pp. 106-112. There are rules for structuring wilderness travel, rolling for weather, getting lost, and foraging. The writing and presentation certainly leaves something to be desired: if one wants a "checklist" as in previous editions, the DM would have to parse the text to make one, so that's not ideal, and there are some random tables presented in this section that probably would be better placed elsewhere in the book. But there's as much info here as in my rules cyclopedia and much much more than in my copy of old school essentials.Then there's stuff like the entire exploration 'pillar', including travel, weather, wandering monsters, etc. These things 'exist' in the game text, but there are no clear procedures for actually bringing them into play.
Without procedures for playing the game, you literally cannot play. So, people invent or import their own. If it works for you, it's not a problem. For you.The game cannot be played without what, now? Because seems like millions of people, many who have never touched an RPG before in their life, are playing just fine.
re: your first point, I agree that lots of games have holes in their rules. 5e is merely a particularly bad offender. I'm not talking about rulings or interpretations, though; I'm talking about procedures. When you pass go, collect 200 dollars. When you roll in Blades, establish position, effect, and complications. That kind of thing. Like, how do you actually play the game?Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I know of no game that doesn't require "connecting the dots" in this manner. Not in the sense that every game needs houserules, but ttrpgs involve individuals interpreting both rules and fictional positioning. If I'm running 5e, I have to make a judgement call on setting a DC, and sometimes a table of suggested DCs would be nice. If I'm running Blades in the Dark, it's up to me to set position and effect and figure out what a "complication" might look like if a roll comes up as a 4 or 5. If anything, the latter is more difficult and requires more connecting-of-dots as a GM.
DMG pp. 106-112. There are rules for structuring wilderness travel, rolling for weather, getting lost, and foraging. The writing and presentation certainly leaves something to be desired: if one wants a "checklist" as in previous editions, the DM would have to parse the text to make one, so that's not ideal, and there are some random tables presented in this section that probably would be better placed elsewhere in the book. But there's as much info here as in my rules cyclopedia and much much more than in my copy of old school essentials.
That's not a rule! It's a list of suggestions. I don't need pages of monster tables and travel speeds, I need to know when and how to introduce these things when I'm running a game.You decide when a random encounter happens, or you roll. Consider checking for a random encounter once every hour, once every 4 to 8 hours, or once during the day and once during a long rest—whatever makes the most sense based on how active the area is.
Yes, 5E is rulings over rules and doing what makes sense for the campaign and your group. It's called "being a DM". There is no static list because it's just not that type of game, it's designed for flexibility. If you need that kind of guidance there are modules galore.Without procedures for playing the game, you literally cannot play. So, people invent or import their own. If it works for you, it's not a problem. For you.
re: your first point, I agree that lots of games have holes in their rules. 5e is merely a particularly bad offender. I'm not talking about rulings or interpretations, though; I'm talking about procedures. When you pass go, collect 200 dollars. When you roll in Blades, establish position, effect, and complications. That kind of thing. Like, how do you actually play the game?
I'm not asking for watertight anything, just some kind of structure I can actually use. Here's the DMG on random encounters, for example:
That's not a rule! It's a list of suggestions. I don't need pages of monster tables and travel speeds, I need to know when and how to introduce these things when I'm running a game.
I agree that wilderness encounters are not really part of the game. That said, a DM making a random encounter a 1-in-6 chance is a pretty easy patch. Much more difficult is to make those encounters into fun gameplay when a) combat can take a long time and b) players expect everything to be "plot" related. In other words:That's not a rule! It's a list of suggestions. I don't need pages of monster tables and travel speeds, I need to know when and how to introduce these things when I'm running a game.
Tell that to new DMs! I mean, seriously, I can't tell you how many times I've been working with a new(ish) DM who is trying to run a game and have them ask me what the rules are one this or that.The “rest” isn’t missing, it’s not needed.
Of course not, because DM's could choose to ignore those "completed" aspects of the rules and/or change them however they want. But, having a baseline to expect IS VERY HELPFUL when a player joins a new table.It doesn’t need to be the same from campaign to campaign, much less table to table!
No, and I never said I did, so please stop exaggerating. But there are several aspects of the rules where more completion/guideline sidebars would be welcomed.You seriously want tables and mechanics for all of that? That doesn’t sound obnoxious and tiresome at all?
Stuff like that is why I despised 3.5 so much I stopped playing altogether for several years.
Sure there is: Sage Advice and Message Boards (including here!) where players often ask for help with rules.Either way, it isn’t any kind of evidence regarding how common it is to feel like the rules are “incomplete”. You’ve just shown that it’s possible that you see anything less than a game that would make GURPS GMs feel overwhelmed with detailed rules as “incomplete”.
No game will ever be "totally complete"--that is impossible. My point was just 5E could have had a bit more rule depth and been better for it IMO. You obviously disagree, which is cool if "rulings and not rules" works for you, but it doesn't work so well for a lot of DMs and players.Let’s just say I find that notion untenable.
We're in the same boat. On occasion I'll modify the rues for a game, but if I have to make a lot of changes then I'm simply going to select another set of rules to use. I use the rules as written for the following reasons:I'm sure a lot of people mod the heck out of their games, but I probably run 98% according to the rules. Same for most people I've played with for the last couple of editions. That includes a couple of games with WOTC employees.
Obviously YMMV, but for me I had less than two pages of house-rules for 1E or 2E despite playing them for 25 years, none at all for B/X or BECMI.
I have over 150 for the full 5E Mod house-rules I currently have.
We all deserve to have our lunch money taken?Maybe we should focus on similarities.
I gotta be honest here, I tend to just put "In my opinion," in front of most statements about a game.But you didn’t say “I don’t likeleeksthe 5e rules.” You said “leeksthe 5e rules are incomplete.” The former is a statement of personal taste, the latter is an evaluation of an objective quality.