D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Oofta]

Serious question: how does 5e teach these 'best practices'?

The DMG. Starter sets. They're starting to do videos, which I think is a great idea.

 

[Umbran]

That said, I have one question to leave, which may help me address some topics in the future. What do you think would be a good shorthand to refer to people that dislike how 95% of D&D tables currently play D&D but likes how the remaining 5% play it?

In the light of moderation, seeking terms to label those that don't meet some standard of matching the majority seems like a good idea to you? You figure this won't look like continued gatekeeping?

Think about that for a bit, please. We expect you'll realize the problem.

 

[Imaro]

Serious question: how does 5e teach these 'best practices'?

Starter sets, rulebooks, social media, player network, Youtube personalities, Twitch streams, trial and error, and so on. D&D is in a unique position because of it's status as market leader (and thus the magnitude to which its player base eclipses all other ttrpg's players). With such a massive player base... it benefits them to leave the game more open to the vast range of styles people play the game in as opposed to hard-locking it into a single style. On the flip side the sheer number of players and the varied styles means it's extremely easy to find information, videos, supplements, etc to tackle something you wish to do with, add to, take out, etc. the game.

I think the problem is you want D&D to rigidly define a single playstyle but they seem to be better served by catering to a less rigid, more open defining of D&D's playstlyle... i.e. leaning more heavily into the rulings a particular DM makes defining the style they are playing the game in.

 

[gorice]

The DMG. Starter sets. They're starting to do videos, which I think is a great idea.

Not trying to be confrontational, but: I've read the DMG cover to cover, and I don't remember anything useful. I'll take a look at the videos, though.

 

[Aldarc]

Not trying to be confrontational, but: I've read the DMG cover to cover, and I don't remember anything useful. I'll take a look at the videos, though.

A lot of advice on DMing D&D 5e on Twitter and elsewhere, ironically, points to the 4e DMG 1 & 2 as opposed to the 5e one.

 

[gorice]

Starter sets, rulebooks, social media, player network, Youtube personalities, Twitch streams, trial and error, and so on. D&D is in a unique position because of it's status as market leader (and thus the magnitude to which its player base eclipses all other ttrpg's players). With such a massive player base... it benefits them to leave the game more open to the vast range of styles people play the game in as opposed to hard-locking it into a single style. On the flip side the sheer number of players and the varied styles means it's extremely easy to find information, videos, supplements, etc to tackle something you wish to do with, add to, take out, etc. the game.

I think the problem is you want D&D to rigidly define a single playstyle but they seem to be better served by catering to a less rigid, more open defining of D&D's playstlyle... i.e. leaning more heavily into the rulings a particular DM makes defining the style they are playing the game in.

I agree, but, this does support my original point: 5e is unfinished, and WotC relies on the community to insert knowledge (or project ideas, if I'm feeling less charitable) about how to actually play the game. If we go back to @pemerton 's example, I think his point still stands.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think the problem is you want D&D to rigidly define a single playstyle but they seem to be better served by catering to a less rigid, more open defining of D&D's playstlyle... i.e. leaning more heavily into the rulings a particular DM makes defining the style they are playing the game in.

This is the way.

Simply put, the feigned ignorance (assumed feigned?) as to how D&D works is beyond bizarre. D&D is designed to allow multiple styles of play; other games (that do not have the history or the community or that design requirement) do not have either the burden or the luxury of that.

I feel like this discussion has been ongoing for a while.

 

[Oofta]

Not trying to be confrontational, but: I've read the DMG cover to cover, and I don't remember anything useful. I'll take a look at the videos, though.

Not sure what you're looking for. There’s several sections in the DMG. There's blogs, live play videos, etc. As always if you have specifics you can always start a thread. Sometimes you may even get good advice.

Honestly though sometimes you just have to learn by doing and learning from your mistakes.

 

[Imaro]

I agree, but, this does support my original point: 5e is unfinished, and WotC relies on the community to insert knowledge (or project ideas, if I'm feeling less charitable) about how to actually play the game. If we go back to @pemerton 's example, I think his point still stands.

No that's not what it supports. I listed both corebooks and starter sets as ways to learn the game. Just because WotC leverages social media, the internet, streaming, etc. as tools to teach (as well as expand) their game... it doesn't then logically follow the game needs those tools to be learned or is incomplete because it doesn't have the specific rules or houserules you are looking for. By this logic any game that ever had supplements that added to it was released incomplete because it was missing that add-on material...

 

[AnotherGuy]

From 4e onwards the books, IMO, have become thin, for a number of reasons. I will say however that these streamlined books are not difficult to grasp, as many of us cut our teeth on the encyclopaedias of 1e-3e and we managed ok.

Having said all that, if my memory serves me correctly, in a recent video I watched by Mattew Colville (linked here by @Campbell) he stated that in D&D we have the tradition of learning how to play the game through other people not necessarily by the books. I'm paraphrasing of course but you get the idea. I strongly agree with him.

As for the example given above, it is absurd, the less we talk about it the better.