Dragonlance "You walk down the road, party is now level 2."

[AnotherGuy]

My feeling is that these are probably concerns for only a minority of D&D players. Eg, as I understand it, the new DMG doesn't include gritty rest variants and the like.

To be honest I'm not all too familiar with the 2024 books, I've looked at far too little to comment.
The success of the DMsGuild, Shadowdark and others 5e variations is an indicator that many player concerns are not addressed by WotC, but yes I will concede that all these preferences will likely always represent a minority of the player-base.

I don't think I agree with this. The rapid levelling is a thing about how the players gain access to PC capabilities. I don't think it has to have implications for the setting more generally. A young farmhand manifests prodigious talent with a sword; or a young priest is miraculously empowered by the gods - this doesn't tell us anything about the world more broadly, other than that heroic prodigies are possible.

Sure and that view is possible because you divorce class design and advancement from the mechanics within the world. I'd say people looking at this from primarily a gamist perspective have it easier, while a simulationist at heart may find it jarring.

EDIT: To add, there are other things which are totally gamist which I'm happy to incorporate, Minions comes to mind. In that instance I'm able to make the exception for Minions as they're purely gamist versions of opponents for colour, for quicker combat etc whereas say the rules for the cleric class seemingly should reflect the capabilities of all clerics encountered within the setting.

If I've understood you properly, this would be a pretty radical change to D&D rules.

Yes. I would welcome more a more coherent design.

Given there are already other RPGs that do this, I doubt that D&D will change from its approach to be more like them.

I'm not sure that they wouldn't approach this because other RPGS do it.
I think they wouldn't experiment because of the associated risk of dividing one's customer base.

 

[pemerton]

Sure and that view is possible because you divorce class design and advancement from the mechanics within the world. I'd say people looking at this from primarily a gamist perspective have it easier, while a simulationist at heart may find it jarring.

I'm not sure how you're using "gamist" and "simulationist". I think I've got more experience with RPGs that I would describe as strongly simulationist in both their PC build and resolution rules (Rolemaster, Classic Traveller, and Burning Wheel though the latter has a few key departures from what I think of simulationism in its some features of its resolution rules) than many ENWorlders. Perhaps its because of this experience that I think I have a good grasp on many of the ways in which 5e D&D, like other versions of D&D, is not simulationist in either its PC build or its resolution rules.

the rules for the cleric class seemingly should reflect the capabilities of all clerics encountered within the setting.

This seems to assume that there are many other clerics in the setting. But what if PC clerics are atypical or exceptional?

I mean, the setting's equivalent of St Bernard might be a puissant miracle worker, but why would he also be a skilled warrior? PC build rules reflect core concerns of D&D play - including the prevalence of combat as a game activity - and would have to be changed a lot (in a RM-esque or even RQ-esque direction) to start to provide setting-build rules.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Or, perhaps more importantly, that they learn there's other types of progession than just levels.

Wealth is one. 5e is, as far as I can tell, horribly stingy with its treasure at low levels; yet wealth and equipment acquirement can be a clear sign of character progress even if the actual level hasn't changed.

"I mean, sure I'm still 1st level, but now I got me a longsword that lets me see in the dark when I wield it - hoo boy, I'm gettin' somewhere!"*

* - that quote, though invented, could quite easily have been me as a player in the early 1980s.

this sort of thing is part of why i wish there was more extensive weapon, armour, equipment and enchantment tables for 5e, being able to customize your gear in little ways that aren't groundbreaking but which still give you an avenue of progression that you have control over which isn't just leveling up.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm not sure how you're using "gamist" and "simulationist". I think I've got more experience with RPGs that I would describe as strongly simulationist in both their PC build and resolution rules (Rolemaster, Classic Traveller, and Burning Wheel though the latter has a few key departures from what I think of simulationism in its some features of its resolution rules) than many ENWorlders. Perhaps its because of this experience that I think I have a good grasp on many of the ways in which 5e D&D, like other versions of D&D, is not simulationist in either its PC build or its resolution rules.

Sure, there are plenty gamist principles baked into D&D but if within the game it's established this is how class y works, then you'd imagine all class y individuals to follow the same design principles.
If you're not following those principles for all class y individuals then I'd view the distinction being gamist.
The same way the minion is a gamist creation.
How would you define it?

I mean, the setting's equivalent of St Bernard might be a puissant miracle worker, but why would he also be a skilled warrior? PC build rules reflect core concerns of D&D play - including the prevalence of combat as a game activity - and would have to be changed a lot (in a RM-esque or even RQ-esque direction) to start to provide setting-build rules.

If one is a cleric then they're not a priest or puissant miracle worker.
They are a cleric as defined by the game with specific powers or access to powers etc.

This seems to assume that there are many other clerics in the setting. But what if PC clerics are atypical or exceptional?

Perhaps this is the premise I'm not accepting, that PCs are automatically prodigies in EVERY D&D setting, as if specifically selected by the gods for greatness and thus suffer PHB design as opposed to everyone else within the setting.

Imagine there were these characters walking around that were just miles better than anyone else - wouldn't that draw attention from others within that setting? And you're suggesting that is/be the premise for every D&D setting.
I prefer the character design rules remain more neutral than pushing such a narrative.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why not play an RPG that does not have player character exceptionalism as a core assumption? Traveller doesn't, for a start.

I would if I could. But my wife doesn't like OSR-style mechanics and she and the rest of my gaming circle are familiar with 5e. So I take the version of 5e I like the most and run it the way I want, to the extent my players accept. Fortunately she at least grew up on 3e and so shares my desires for setting logic and verisimilitude to an extent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

this sort of thing is part of why i wish there was more extensive weapon, armour, equipment and enchantment tables for 5e, being able to customize your gear in little ways that aren't groundbreaking but which still give you an avenue of progression that you have control over which isn't just leveling up.

Level Up can handle the sort of customization you are describing.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Level Up can handle the sort of customization you are describing.

i know you say this from a place of genuine enjoyment of LU Micah and i don't wish to be mean but i have to say sometimes you do come across as if you're being paid by the post to advertise for them the amount that you seem to mention how 'level up does X' in response to posts and topics.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would if I could. But my wife doesn't like OSR-style mechanics and she and the rest of my gaming circle are familiar with 5e. So I take the version of 5e I like the most and run it the way I want, to the extent my players accept. Fortunately she at least grew up on 3e and so shares my desires for setting logic and verisimilitude to an extent.

Traveller doesn't use OSR-style mechanics, and is relatively simple to pick up if you skip character generation. and the are oodles of other tabletop RPGs out there, some of which assume PCs are exceptional, and some that do not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

i know you say this from a place of genuine enjoyment of LU Micah and i don't wish to be mean but i have to say sometimes you do come across as if you're being paid by the post to advertise for them the amount that you seem to mention how 'level up does X' in response to posts and topics.

Ok. That doesn't change anything though. To me Level Up is the best version of 5e by every individual metric I care about. If someone laments WotC not meeting their needs in an area, and I feel Level Up does, I will tell them about it. No need for compensation, I just believe in the product.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Traveller doesn't use OSR-style mechanics, and is relatively simple to pick up if you skip character generation. and the are oodles of other tabletop RPGs out there, some of which assume PCs are exceptional, and some that do not.

Nah, I'm good. I'm not getting out of 5e for you.