D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Oofta]

TIP:
This happens if you forget 2 major rules on Skill Challenges.

Rule 1: Each PC can only use a secondary skill once.
Rule 2: Secondary skills have a DC one difficulty higher

When the DM runs a skill challenge, they are supposed to announce the primary skills of the challenge. Every other skill can only be rolled once per PCand a harder DCs. Doing that forces the PCs to mostly use the primary skills and not just what they are good at.

Fair enough, my point still stands. While I liked the concept, for us a detailed procedure was detrimental to the fun of the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The DM decided what the goals were, what happened on success and failure. They also decided which skills were appropriate. When running a skill challenge the DM was supposed to let the players know the goals and appropriate skills, it was then run similar to a combat with initiative and every PC needing to do something on their turn. Players could use a skill the DM hadn't thought of if they could convince the DM that it could be useful.
In my experience to turned out to be very detrimental to creativity and I stopped using them in my home game. They became very boring and frustrating for people I played with, it had a tendency to kill role playing and alternative approaches to overcoming obstacles. If someone came up with a solution that should have ended the challenge immediately, it still only counted as 1 success. It became "Okay, Bob is good at skill X so he'll use that. Sue is good at Y, Kim what is your PC good at?"

Would you describe D&D combat as the same? People taking turns rolling dice to see what happens, and trying to angle to do what they're good at?

Does that structure that the combat rules provide chafe in the same way as skill challenges did for your group?

The thing is that after a while people would literally groan at the table when someone announced we were starting a skill challenge. So I'm not sure I can disagree more with "procedures make the game inherently better." In my experience they are just as likely to make the game worse.

Please drop the "inherently better" stuff. No one is saying that. Not better or worse, just different.

But... some don't agree that the impact has been a less "complete" game. I don't think anyone objects to discussing it... but this seems more concerned with the fact that some in that discussion come to a different conclusion than others.

So D&D now delivers a wider range of possible adventures, right? A greater number of experiences (adventures) versus a core experience (site-based exploration).

Does that wider range require a greater number of structures to help deliver those experiences?

Has the game delivered that? Are the suggestions in the DMG on how to do these things sufficient?

Does "the GM gets to decide" suitably replace any and all such structures?

If we consider "GM decides" as a structure, then aren't all games that follow that structure similar in the same way as all site-based exploration games are similar? Have we simply replaced one core experience (site-based exploration) with another (GM's-fiction exploration)?

So GM styles is the determiner of difference?

Not solely, no, but I'd say it's a big factor. Take a player from Critical Role and have them jump in on Dimension 20, and they'll hit the ground running. Take them and put them into a B/X game and they'll need some adjustments.

Though I don't know if this is actually GM style... as @Vaalingrade pointed out, Dimension 20 is more madcap than Critical Role. That's more a tonal difference. And there are differences in genre between the two, as well. Those seem more about style.

What I'm talking about is the actual structure of the game and how it works and how I as a player experience it.

 

[Aldarc]

Dimension 20 is waaaay more madcap in feel. The CR crew can get zany, but Matt generally keeps the world grounded. In D20, for example, they're just straight up in a fantasy suburb where absrud mashup berween D&D and modern life is everywhere.

It's beef nachos vs chicken nachos: Both delicious, but sometimes you're vibing for one more than the other.

So CSI: Miami vs. CSI: NY?

 

[Malmuria]

Of course there is variety in how things are done from table to table. There is still far more that is similar from table to table then is different.

I think this is essentially the point of the video in the OP, namely that 1) there are certain 'dnd-isms' that exist across editions (str, dex, con...) that make gameplay familiar enough despite their differences (critical hit rules, grappling rules, etc) and 2) the gameplay of any edition will be subject to the prior experiences of participants at the table. Sometimes (2) will be expressed in house rules, sometimes just in metagame-ish presumptions and habits.

 

[Malmuria]

It's beef nachos vs chicken nachos: Both delicious, but sometimes you're vibing for one more than the other.

And if you think about it, nachos are just a kind of mini-sandwich.

 

[Umbran]

Lol okay man.

Mod Note:
Next time, either actually add something to the conversation, or hold off posting, please. A post that is just dismissiveness and no content comes off really badly, and gets reported a lot of times...

 

[niklinna]

And if you think about it, nachos are just a kind of mini-sandwich.

Sure, if you tossed the sliced bread all over the place and put the meat in a blender and just poured it out and firehosed a bunch of sauce on top of the mess.

I mean, sloppy joes are barely sandwiches, and we're way past sloppy joe territory, with nachos....

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I watched the video, and while I disagree, I understand it.

This is responding to the original video, rather than any conversation that follows so if I am repeating something, apologies.

To me the comparison would be Pizza - all D&D is pizza, but what toppings on it are what define it and give it the flavor. Some like OSR and old stuff (Cheese or Basic Pepperoni) some love all veggie, some hate all veggie but love all meat. It is all recognizable as the same thing, but the little differences really matter.

 

[Malmuria]

Sure, if you tossed the sliced bread all over the place and put the meat in a blender and just poured it out and firehosed a bunch of sauce on top of the mess.

I mean, sloppy joes are barely sandwiches, and we're way past sloppy joe territory, with nachos....

If lunchables are a type of sandwich, and open-faced sandwiches are a type of sandwich, then I think nachos can also be considered a sandwhich. #sloppinessdoesnotmatter

 

[Campbell]

I think this is essentially the point of the video in the OP, namely that 1) there are certain 'dnd-isms' that exist across editions (str, dex, con...) that make gameplay familiar enough despite their differences (critical hit rules, grappling rules, etc) and 2) the gameplay of any edition will be subject to the prior experiences of participants at the table. Sometimes (2) will be expressed in house rules, sometimes just in metagame-ish presumptions and habits.

I definitely agree with that overall point. I think it was taken a bit too far in the video, particularly in the dismissal of the Pathfinder fan who obviously values what it uniquely brings to the table. As someone who is a fan of games like Pathfinder Second Edition, Worlds Without Number and Into the Odd you want both to have their place within the overall D&D tradition respected, but also like their unique designs valued. I think walking that particular edge can be difficult sometimes.