D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[hawkeyefan]

I don’t think the lack of specificity in the initiative rules for 5E is all that problematic in the grand scheme. But I don’t think that was the point. Obviously, everyone has managed to figure it out.

But, it’s indicative of a wider element of 5E’s design. I use the word element because for some it’s a feature and for others it’s a bug.

The rules are written with intentional blanks that are expected to be filled by the GM and/or players.

Now with initiative, this isn’t a huge problem. But it’s just an example of a wider element, and other examples may be more problematic.

What’s interesting to me is that now that 5E has achieved such widespread success and they have so many folks saying that this design choice is a feature, they look to be doing away with it in the 1D&D playtest. There are strong hints in the first two playtest packets that they’re looking to codify and define things to a much greater extent.

I wonder how, if that does turn out to be the case, folks will react to that. I mean they can call it whatever they want, but it’s a new edition of the game, and I expect there will be those who loved the loose “natural language” and “rulings over rules” of 5E who will object to this codification.

I suppose that would only be the case if editions mattered, though!

 

[FrogReaver]

I suppose that would only be the case if editions mattered, though!

What do they call it when you fight against a position that no one is actually taking?

IMO. The rest was honestly a fairly thoughtful post up to this point.

 

[Oofta]

If anyone is truly confused by the basic play loop, the answers are a quick Google search away. Or they play it wrong, perhaps have to go back through the rulebook and figure it out. There will always be things that could be clearer or stated differently. Yet tens of millions of people started playing D&D with 5E. Technical jargon can be a huge barrier to entry.

I think natural language is the best option out of all of the imperfect options. There will never be a ruleset the complexity of D&D without flaws that could not be improved.

But this? Not understanding the basic play loop? It's a molehill not a mountain.

 

[Aldarc]

What’s interesting to me is that now that 5E has achieved such widespread success and they have so many folks saying that this design choice is a feature, they look to be doing away with it in the 1D&D playtest. There are strong hints in the first two playtest packets that they’re looking to codify and define things to a much greater extent.

I wonder how, if that does turn out to be the case, folks will react to that. I mean they can call it whatever they want, but it’s a new edition of the game, and I expect there will be those who loved the loose “natural language” and “rulings over rules” of 5E who will object to this codification.

I suppose that would only be the case if editions mattered, though!

It's possible that some areas of the game will see greater codification in One D&D while other areas will not. On the whole, One D&D appears to be tightening the rules, but it's a question of degrees and whether people really notice/care or not. But as is often the case, new rules will reveal new areas of vagueness and ambiguity, and these will be points of contention going forward.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's possible that some areas of the game will see greater codification in One D&D while other areas will not. On the whole, One D&D appears to be tightening the rules, but it's a question of degrees and whether people really notice/care or not. But as is often the case, new rules will reveal new areas of vagueness and ambiguity, and these will be points of contention going forward.

Oh sure. And since it’s a playtest, there’s no certainty that everything in it will remain.

I just find those hints interesting. Like they got everyone on board with a loose approach, and now they want to tighten it all up.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What do they call it when you fight against a position that no one is actually taking?

IMO. The rest was honestly a fairly thoughtful post up to this point.

It’s the name of the thread. And also a joke.

 

[FrogReaver]

It’s the name of the thread. And also a joke.

Such a joke is only funny if it assumes people are actually doing that. They are not.

 

[Umbran]

Who is the "pro-D&D" side? Does that imply that someone who thinks that editions do matter is anti-D&D?

Does this thing that was said mean this other thing that wasn't even hinted at?

No, there is no implication here that thinking editions matter means one is anti-D&D.

That whole framing is just bizarre to me.

Well, from here, it looks like you are reading a lot into it that isn't actually present in the statements. That would lead to it seeming bizarre.

 

[gorice]

If anyone is truly confused by the basic play loop, the answers are a quick Google search away.

I don't think it's confusion over the basic play loop (though I don't want to put words in other people's mouths).

Suppose I say 'I want to punch this innkeep in the face' (using my authority over my character).

The DM is expected to respond. Fine. Does this trigger an initiative roll? What if the DM says 'OK, you punch him in the face', and I say, 'no, I want to fight him, roll initiative.' Or vice versa. Who is in the right?

Obviously, it's not an insurmountable problem. It is an absence in the rules, though: as @hawkeyefan said, you're expected to insert your own expectation.

I wouldn't say this is a complete non-issue in actual play, by the way. For example: as DM, I've occasionally resolved fights without going to initiative, especially in a dungeon situation where there are lots of weak enemy groups, or in situations like duels or fistfights where it seemed more sensible to handle them narratively. Some of my players were surprised by this. If the rules had some simple guidelines as to when to roll, and when not to roll, this wouldn't be an issue. It might also help novice DMs who might not realise that not rolling initiative is even an option.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think it's confusion over the basic play loop (though I don't want to put words in other people's mouths).

Suppose I say 'I want to punch this innkeep in the face' (using my authority over my character).

The DM is expected to respond. Fine. Does this trigger an initiative roll? What if the DM says 'OK, you punch him in the face', and I say, 'no, I want to fight him, roll initiative.' Or vice versa. Who is in the right?

Obviously, it's not an insurmountable problem. It is an absence in the rules, though: as @hawkeyefan said, you're expected to insert your own expectation.

I wouldn't say this is a complete non-issue in actual play, by the way. For example: as DM, I've occasionally resolved fights without going to initiative, especially in a dungeon situation where there are lots of weak enemy groups, or in situations like duels or fistfights where it seemed more sensible to handle them narratively. Some of my players were surprised by this. If the rules had some simple guidelines as to when to roll, and when not to roll, this wouldn't be an issue. It might also help novice DMs who might not realise that not rolling initiative is even an option.

The game does define what combat is though, not robustly but it's there. Is punching the innkeep in the face causing what the game defines as combat or does it just cause the innkeep to demand you leave his shop or to call for guards, etc.

PHB: "A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting"

If the outcome of the players action leads to the above then the outcome of the basic playloop is combat. Follow the combat rules from there.