OTHER than classes and races - leave them out entirely - how many "You must use one of these options for this rule" do you think there will be in the Players Handbook. Note that these are decisons that MUST be made before your group can play, because all the players and the DM will use that option, and that we are talking about rules where ONLY 1 can be used at a time.
Less than 10 decisions 10 ro 20 decisions 20 to 50 decisions 50 or more decisions
My bet is that if you think the answer is less than 10 you don't think a default is necessary for the game. If you think it's 50 or more - as I do - then you probably think a default is a necessity.
SO ALL OTHER BICKERING ASIDE - where do people fall on this issue?
One, and that'd probably be how healing is handled though I doubt we're getting multiple ways of how healing is decided. Perhaps it's more like "How to start with starting HP?" Personally, I can go with Max HD + Con modifier and either roll for HP + Con modifier or take the average of the roll.
Each class can have multiple ways of casting spells. It's been that way for the past 20+ years so I don't see a need to make magical systems universal within the same setting. If a Wizard wants to be spellpoint and the Sorcerer wants to be Encounter-based and the Warlock wants Vancian, I see nothing wrong with that as a player's individual option.
EDIT: perhaps a second decision, magical items and their overall role in the campaign. If I wanna run Dark Sun or a Middle Earth or even a Earth-based post-apocolypse game, then Magic is going to be extreamly rare to non-existant. But an Eberron or Forgotten Realms or Mythical fantasy style game is being played, then magic takes a central role in the setting.
So outside of Magic Item distribution and Hit Point generation/healing systems, then I think everything could be an option to include in your game and doesn't need any sort of "Default".
DOUBLE EDIT: Forgot about TotM vs. Grid-based. Lets face it, we're NOT getting Grid-based language in the game. No more squares or bursts or Ranged 10, Weapon: Melee tag-lines. That, to me, was the base idea behind "grid-based". Additionally, I doubt we'll get any options that allow re-positioning or "sliding" or stuff like that, so Grid-based stuff probably won't even be in the PHB.
One, and that'd probably be how healing is handled though I doubt we're getting multiple ways of how healing is decided. Perhaps it's more like "How to start with starting HP?" Personally, I can go with Max HD + Con modifier and either roll for HP +
OTHER than classes and races - leave them out entirely - how many "You must use one of these options for this rule" do you think there will be in the Players Handbook. Note that these are decisons that MUST be made before your group can play, because all the players and the DM will use that option, and that we are talking about rules where ONLY 1 can be used at a time.
Less than 10 decisions 10 ro 20 decisions 20 to 50 decisions 50 or more decisions
My bet is that if you think the answer is less than 10 you don't think a default is necessary for the game. If you think it's 50 or more - as I do - then you probably think a default is a necessity.
SO ALL OTHER BICKERING ASIDE - where do people fall on this issue?
One, and that'd probably be how healing is handled though I doubt we're getting multiple ways of how healing is decided. Perhaps it's more like "How to start with starting HP?" Personally, I can go with Max HD + Con modifier and either roll for HP + Con modifier or take the average of the roll.
Each class can have multiple ways of casting spells. It's been that way for the past 20+ years so I don't see a need to make magical systems universal within the same setting. If a Wizard wants to be spellpoint and the Sorcerer wants to be Encounter-based and the Warlock wants Vancian, I see nothing wrong with that as a player's individual option.
EDIT: perhaps a second decision, magical items and their overall role in the campaign. If I wanna run Dark Sun or a Middle Earth or even a Earth-based post-apocolypse game, then Magic is going to be extreamly rare to non-existant. But an Eberron or Forgotten Realms or Mythical fantasy style game is being played, then magic takes a central role in the setting.
So outside of Magic Item distribution and Hit Point generation/healing systems, then I think everything could be an option to include in your game and doesn't need any sort of "Default".
I think he was asking how many of those "could be an option"s you think there will be in the finished product.
One, and that'd probably be how healing is handled though I doubt we're getting multiple ways of how healing is decided. Perhaps it's more like "How to start with starting HP?" Personally, I can go with Max HD + Con modifier and either roll for HP +
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about "This could be in your game if you wanted, or you can just omit it." options.
I'm talking about "Some form of this rule must be in your game, it is a fundmental mechanic. You can use option A, B, or C but only one of them."
ChakravantJust to be clear, I'm not talking about "This could be in your game if you wanted, or you can just omit it." options.I'm talking about "Some form of this rule must be in your game, it is a fundmental mechanic. You can use option A, B, or C
you keep telling me "this game will not be just for you" I know, thats why I'm suggesting the beginner or no-default game.
"The beginner game" really really needs defaults.
"The no-default game" is about as far from "the beginner game" as it's possible to get.
AT BEST, a beginner upon being handed the "no-default game" will either (a) decide an easy way of defaulting, e.g. first option listed, or (b) ask someone with more experience to suggest a good set of options, and take that as his default. AT WORST he'll default to not playing the game at all. But he will rarely treat it as a "no default game".
I favor having a true beginner set that presents ONLY the simple option. And skips character creation entirely by means of a decent selection of pregens - say four classes and four races, two characters of each combination, 32 pregen characters. And includes a 4- or 5-level campaign, with the monsters and treasures needed for that campaign. Leave out reach weapons and you don't need reach rules; leave out flying creatures and you don't need flight rules; etc. (And it should be free as an epub. Printed copies should include a set of dice and they have to be expensive enough that Barnes&Noble finds it worthwhile to give them shelf space, but should be as inexpensive as is feasible.)
But not every beginner will get the beginner set. Let's not chase off a player, or a DM, or an entire group because they made the mistake of buying the complete game rather than the beginner set...
"The beginner game" really really needs defaults."The no-default game" is about as far from "the beginner game" as it's possible to get. AT BEST, a beginner upon being handed the "no-default game" will either (a) decide an easy way of defaulting, e.g
You say it cannot ever happen but I have firsthand experience that says otherwise.
And you still deny it.
No, you have firsthand experience that people INCORRECTLY ASSUMED otherwise.
That's what you said. And nobody is denying it. If you are not willing to stand by what you said, then get back under your bridge before the billy goats gruff show up.
You simply cannot have respect for me if you dismiss out of hand what I bring to the discussion.
Actually, it's YOU dismissing what you brought to the discussion, and wanting us to believe you brought something much different.
No, you have firsthand experience that people INCORRECTLY ASSUMED otherwise.That's what you said. And nobody is denying it. If you are not willing to stand by what you said, then get back under your bridge before the billy goats gruff show up.Actuall
OTHER than classes and races - leave them out entirely - how many "You must use one of these options for this rule" do you think there will be in the Players Handbook. Note that these are decisons that MUST be made before your group can play, because all the players and the DM will use that option, and that we are talking about rules where ONLY 1 can be used at a time.
Less than 10 decisions 10 ro 20 decisions 20 to 50 decisions 50 or more decisions
I think the answer is less than 10 decisions, although certainly not much less. However, a number of those decisoins will carry with them a handful of additional options that are logically grouped together. For example, you choose the style of your campaign (gritty, high fantasy, etc.) and that pre-selects a number of other options for you. Of course, you could choose not go with these pre-selected options within your chosen campaign style, but if you don't want to customize further, you don't have to.
I favor having a true beginner set that presents ONLY the simple option. And skips character creation entirely by means of a decent selection of pregens - say four classes and four races, two characters of each combination, 32 pregen characters. And includes a 4- or 5-level campaign, with the monsters and treasures needed for that campaign. Leave out reach weapons and you don't need reach rules; leave out flying creatures and you don't need flight rules; etc.
That sounds more like an introductory adventure with just enough of the game rules to run that adventure then an actual introductory rule set. They have done things like that in the past and I don't see why they wouldn't do it again, but having an introductory adventure is not the same thing as having a PHB with a "default" rule set where every option is already chosen for you unless you make changes.
I think the answer is less than 10 decisions, although certainly not much less. However, a number of those decisoins will carry with them a handful of additional options that are logically grouped together. For example, you choose the style of your c
OTHER than classes and races - leave them out entirely - how many "You must use one of these options for this rule" do you think there will be in the Players Handbook. Note that these are decisons that MUST be made before your group can play, because all the players and the DM will use that option, and that we are talking about rules where ONLY 1 can be used at a time.
Shift the question slightly:
How many "You must use one of these options for this rule" do you think there will be in the game - that have to be made before the DM and players can begin creating the mechanics of the world and the PCs?
I probably wouldn't have a hard time with a couple dozen such choices (but I'd wonder why so many)... but I've been playing D&D and other RPGs off and on for about 30 years.
Do we want to hand this task, without guidance, to a person who's never seen D&D before, let alone played, and is now going to be a DM?
Shift the question slightly:How many "You must use one of these options for this rule" do you think there will be in the game - that have to be made before the DM and players can begin creating the mechanics of the world and the PCs?I probably wouldn
Thanks to the edition wars, what is and isn't D&D is a very loaded question, and as a result what is and isn't "default" is also a loaded question. WotC and the D&D community need to face that fact. People aren't going to be happy if somebody else's D&D gets labeled default while theirs gets labeled optional, especially after years of edition warring. Mike Mearls likes to pretend that there is a core D&D everybody can agree on but that is a load of crap. Ask yourself this question: is there being a default 5E ok with you if it doesn't fit your definition of D&D?
Its ok with me, I can still play any other edition that takes my fancy, I will however not buy it unless it has the right 'feel' to me. I'm all for a streamlined and quicker play, but somethings shout D&D to me. Saving Throws, AC and the Stat Block are key elements, Vancian Magic, Thieves backstabbing and so on. Things that make D&D unique from the plethora of other Fantasy RPGs to choose from. So I'm unapologetic over wanting 5th Ed to be more like 1st than 4th, at least in tone.
And those arguing against a 'default' set of rules seem to want it fix problems that a rule set can't address. Players and DM's have to come together and decide many things about a game, but I can't see the next Edition making people suddenly open to different styles if they aren't already that way inclined.
I play in a group eery week where we rotate the gm around every 2/3 months, we play what system and adventure the GM decides, knowing full well we will have the opportunity to run our own game soon enough. Weve played in the last few years d6 Fantasy, BASH, D&D Next, d20 Apocolypse, Skull and Crossbones, BASH SCI Fi, D20 Pulp, GURPS, WWF d20, All Flesh Myst be Eaten, Dragon Warriros, 4th Edition D&D. I even forced them to Play Tunnels and Trolls . My point is that I know what differes D&D, to me at least, from GURPS Fantasy or Dragonwarriors or any other RPG, if the next edition doesn't play like D&D out of the box then I won't be buying it. I'm not sayin that in a 'so you better make it the way I like' way, but rather as an honest declaration of my preferences. Others will have different goals or preferences. Thats why this open beta playtest is great, a chance to voice these concerns, ideas and wishes before they go to print.
Its ok with me, I can still play any other edition that takes my fancy, I will however not buy it unless it has the right 'feel' to me. I'm all for a streamlined and quicker play, but somethings shout D&D to me. Saving Throws, AC and the Stat Block a
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about "This could be in your game if you wanted, or you can just omit it." options.
I'm talking about "Some form of this rule must be in your game, it is a fundmental mechanic. You can use option A, B, or C but only one of them."
This is pretty much what I thought. We've already got ToTM vs. Gridded, Magic vs. Magic, and Exp. style. Backgrounds are "take it or leave it,", but I think Feats vs. Specialties will be pretty much "You need one or the other". I'd say we get more than 10, but not by much.
This is pretty much what I thought. We've already got ToTM vs. Gridded, Magic vs. Magic, and Exp. style. Backgrounds are "take it or leave it,", but I think Feats vs. Specialties will be pretty much "You need one or the other". I'd say we get more
Does it take more time to invent all of the options and house rules you want to use, or to read an optional rule and decide whther or not you want to use it?
never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable.
never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable.
Does it take more time to invent all of the options and house rules you want to use, or to read an optional rule and decide whther or not you want to use it?
never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable.
And yet, somehow, you'll have to do this when presented with a choice that's been pre-tested to be perfectly fine no matter what you pick or how you pick it?
You confuse me greatly, sir.
never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable.[/quote]And yet, somehow, you'll have to do this when presented with
So.....to explain the thread thus far into a nut shell (because pages of page of this is a rather lengthy read):
There are some who feel that there should be a pre-set way to play. This might be Vancian spellcasting, Max HP at 1st level then HD + Con mod each level afterward, and the Four Classes (Ftr, Clr, Wiz, Rog) and Four Races (elf, human, dwarf, halfling). Outside of that default, there can be options players and DMs can choose, but don't have to if they need limited options and want to play 5 minutes after opening the box.
There are others that are hoping that there is no "default", that they should design the game so that Player 1 can choose to be a Wizard (or other arcane spellcaster) who uses Spell-Points while the Sorcerer can be Encounter-based; players gain Con score starting HP with HD + Con modifier each level afterward, and a dozen base classes and half a dozen races. The options on HP, healing, spellcasting, class availability, race availability, specialties, backgrounds can easily be selected by Players.
If this is the case, then I hope and pray that the latter is the way the game goes but I feel that the former is going to be the expected approach. Pretty much because making Vancian spellcasting and limited HP/Healing "Default" will appease Old Guard players, the ones that I feel this edition is truely aimed at. If an "Old Guard" DM sees that his players can freely choose to play a spellpoint Dragonborn sorcerer with the Celestial bloodline and cast healing magic and fight with a Sword, he'll instantly throw the book and game out the window in lieu of 1e Reprints or their SRD Retro-clones.
This kind of feeds into my concerns. Old guard players that want the default to match their tastes for the purpose of validating those tastes.
It's a pointless concern. There are only two ways default rules are going to appear. 1) based on the most popular rule of a given category, which eliminates the old guard, and 2) what mearls thinks should be default, which also eliminates the old guard. You are worrying over nothing.
This kind of feeds into my concerns. Old guard players that want the default to match their tastes for the purpose of validating those tastes.[/quote]It's a pointless concern. There are only two ways default rules are going to appear. 1) based on t
Does it take more time to invent all of the options and house rules you want to use, or to read an optional rule and decide whther or not you want to use it?
never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable.
And yet, somehow, you'll have to do this when presented with a choice that's been pre-tested to be perfectly fine no matter what you pick or how you pick it?
You confuse me greatly, sir.
How can you possibly be confused by the fact that my house rules take seconds and are only done as I encounter a problem vs. being forced to read through hundreds of pages and analyze many modules over hours and then discuss for more hours with the group?
never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable.[/quote]And yet, somehow, you'll have to do this when presented with
Does it take more time to invent all of the options and house rules you want to use, or to read an optional rule and decide whther or not you want to use it?
never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable.
Ah. So you advocate the "This is stupid. I as the DM say we this way instead." DM Fiat phase in the middle of an adventure. One of my first DMs warned be about such DMs, enough that I know to avoid them like the plague. I like to know what game I'm getting into beforehand, and am not a big fan of having the rug pulled out from underneath me like that.
never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable.[/quote]Ah. So you advocate the "This is stupid. I as the DM say
OTHER than classes and races - leave them out entirely - how many "You must use one of these options for this rule" do you think there will be in the Players Handbook. Note that these are decisons that MUST be made before your group can play, because all the players and the DM will use that option, and that we are talking about rules where ONLY 1 can be used at a time.
Less than 10 decisions 10 ro 20 decisions 20 to 50 decisions 50 or more decisions
My bet is that if you think the answer is less than 10 you don't think a default is necessary for the game. If you think it's 50 or more - as I do - then you probably think a default is a necessity.
SO ALL OTHER BICKERING ASIDE - where do people fall on this issue?
To be honest I don't see how we can have very many and have the game be coherent. Just thinking about the modules I've made myself in the past:
magic resources (I've set a precedent with my group all ready that the DM controls this), combat system (though why all methods can't exist all at once just at different places in the game I don't know) are the big ones.
After that, what is there? I guess whether you use backgrounds and specialties, but feats are feats and backgrounds feel like a natural extension to character creation but hey some folks might hate them. Maybe they could decide whether they're rolled into character class.
Looks like they're balancing the game with no magic equipment in mind, which means they're probably treating the magic level like a module? No idea.
Some folks are calling how you determine HP a module.. that seems a bit excessive to me, but I guess it is a decsion. Still modding that is nothing new.
So that's what, 6 choices? Not many.
The problem I have with the "no default, ever" argument is I can't visualise how it'd be organised such that a normal person can understand it. I sort of spelled that out earlier but the meat of the comment was ignored in favour of more baggage, so here it is again:
Table surfing. I don't want to do that. When I level up, I want one table to refer to or at the very least I want all tables on one page and I don't see how that can happen for a wizard without picking one of the systems and integrating it into the table. I don't want an instruction to "go to pXX and select a system for n."
The notion of a section full of magic progressions that I've got to flip to every time I want to know what spells you get at what level is nauseating.
To be honest I don't see how we can have very many and have the game be coherent. Just thinking about the modules I've made myself in the past:magic resources (I've set a precedent with my group all ready that the DM controls this), combat system (th
hi again, wow you dont post for a day and 10 pages go by.
ok so my last posting on page 33 asked for people to point out the specific ways that a modular "no default" or "beginner default" system would be inferrior to the "traditional D&D Default" others had proposed.
first Kalex mis assumed I meant there needed to be a seperate basic set for people to buy, that was addressed by Haldrick who properly explained the basic default would be part of the core.
Next Kadim ran on a bit about why the specifics I asked for were not valid and stated "it dosent matter if the method presented is better, it matters if its presented in a way we expect"
@kadim, 5e will not be what anyone expects, if you think its important that everyone already know what to expect, whats the point of coming up with a new rule edition at all?
Just go back and do what PF already did. Find a ruleset people like, fix the errors, and re-market it. That is not what I or the majority of others want from 5e, and PF now is just as broken with system bloat as 3.0 ever was.
Maxperson then made some one line "your position is invalid and this handwave is for you" statements which Mand12 properly called him on.
so in essence, nobody could find a real fault with Mand12's or my suggestions other than.
"but but but... ITS NOT PLAYABLE RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!!! SO THERE!"
excuse me but, Max... you repeat this like a mantra, but you basically shoot yourself in the foot just a few postings later by saying "the DM should not have to spend any more work than creating the adventure" well at least your admitting the DM has some work to do...
But what about creating the world the adventure takes place in? This is the most traditional form of D&D; what about creating the governments, the racial interactions, the place of religion, the level of magic, the additude these various peoples, govenments and institutions have towards the PCs, the overall econ of the D&D world itself. you could spend a whole lifetime making your gaming world... and many do.
so the DM's work is not just picking a few monsters out of the book that I think the players will want to fight. He must create a plot, an adventure path, protagonists, antagonists, plot twists, planned encounters, scrips and converstions between NPCs...
In short, I think you just greatly minimized all the work a good DM has to do to create a good game once the books are opened. And there can be a TON of work to do.
further, as Mand said like 35 pages or so ago... the first choice in every section could be the most simplistic choice, a choice that puts the complexity of the rule, just a step below the complexity of a traditional AD&D/3.0 rule, making it more easy for a beginner to learn. This would be your default, if you decide to run the beginning game...
all your choices of A B C or D are choice "A"... no thinking, conversations, discussions etc. "since were all new here, we'll be playing the beginning game... where all choices are the A choice." no work, no effort, and more playable... (ahem) right out of the box.
hi again, wow you dont post for a day and 10 pages go by. ok so my last posting on page 33 asked for people to point out the specific ways that a modular "no default" or "beginner default" system would be inferrior to the "traditional D&D Default" ot
Next Kadim ran on a bit about why the specifics I asked for were not valid and stated "it dosent matter if the method presented is better, it matters if its presented in a way we expect"
@kadim, 5e will not be what anyone expects, if you think its important that everyone already know what to expect, whats the point of coming up with a new rule edition at all?
On the contrary, the point of calling it a new edition is because it's built on previous concepts and is identifiable as the same game. There are volumes of expectation attached to doing that.
And anyway, when we approach a body of information that's ostensibly arranged into a reference book, we expect the book to outline that informaion in a specific way. I have serious doubts that the designers will bother to find a new way to organise information. It'd be spending time and effort reinventing the wheel when they could be working on the actual game. So when I think of how gaming books are organised, I know immediately that it'll have sections and chapters on content in a predictable order, like character creation near the beginning and adventures/story elements near the end. combat will be after equipment and skills will be after character classes.
Similarly, character options are presented in a specific format that is repeated with only small changes from book to book. None of the books I've read offer a choose-your-own-adventure style version of a class or other form of major, centrally defining quality of a character. The ones that don't provide information in one place are generally hated, even if the game is liked.
Organising information in a way that people dont expect leads to them trying to follow the expectation, discovering that the norm isn't being followed, and then they get annoyed. You could come up with the most amazing format ever conceived, but people will not care. They'll care whether or not they can easily use their own understanding of what a reference book is and how it's laid out to get at information. People like innovative ideas, but they hate having to work at finding information.
On the contrary, the point of calling it a new edition is because it's built on previous concepts and is identifiable as the same game. There are volumes of expectation attached to doing that.And anyway, when we approach a body of information that's
Just wanted to post something I found showing Mike talking about a default. As I find more I will probably update this post.
As we go forward, as more core rules become settled, expect to see tests that are just try these tactical rules, here are the rules for this style of campaign[...]
Sure seems from this quote that there will at a minimum be default rules for different campaign styles, as many of us have suggested. Playing low-magic? Use A, F, G, H and P. Playing high-fantasy? Use A, B, E, G, M, and W. Etc...
This also begs the question, if there will be defaults for campaign styles isn't it highly likely that one of those campaign styles will be presented as a general default in the initial release as a sort of default setting, default style?
Back with more as I come across it.
Just wanted to post something I found showing Mike talking about a default. As I find more I will probably update this post.Sure seems from this quote that there will at a minimum be default rules for different campaign styles, as many of us have su
good, looking forward to hearing it... makes me wanna watch those gen-con pannels again... I really wish somebody would write a "D&D 5e what we know faq" based on what was actually said...
good, looking forward to hearing it... makes me wanna watch those gen-con pannels again... I really wish somebody would write a "D&D 5e what we know faq" based on what was actually said...
Does it take more time to invent all of the options and house rules you want to use, or to read an optional rule and decide whther or not you want to use it?
never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable.
Ah. So you advocate the "This is stupid. I as the DM say we this way instead." DM Fiat phase in the middle of an adventure. One of my first DMs warned be about such DMs, enough that I know to avoid them like the plague. I like to know what game I'm getting into beforehand, and am not a big fan of having the rug pulled out from underneath me like that.
Whatever floats your boat. I prefer to play in a game where we aren't forced into playing a situation stupidly because a rule doesn't fit right.
never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable.[/quote]Ah. So you advocate the "This is stupid. I as the DM say we t
"but but but... ITS NOT PLAYABLE RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!!! SO THERE!"
Not playable out of the box equals a failed product.
excuse me but, Max... you repeat this like a mantra, but you basically shoot yourself in the foot just a few postings later by saying "the DM should not have to spend any more work than creating the adventure" well at least your admitting the DM has some work to do...
You're going to need to explain why you feel that the DM and players should be forced into many hours of extra work.
But what about creating the world the adventure takes place in? This is the most traditional form of D&D; what about creating the governments, the racial interactions, the place of religion, the level of magic, the additude these various peoples, govenments and institutions have towards the PCs, the overall econ of the D&D world itself. you could spend a whole lifetime making your gaming world... and many do.
Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Eberron, and so on. Some (many) of us work for a living and are in relationships, so we don't have the time to create worlds from scratch like I used to do in high school and my early 20's.
so the DM's work is not just picking a few monsters out of the book that I think the players will want to fight. He must create a plot, an adventure path, protagonists, antagonists, plot twists, planned encounters, scrips and converstions between NPCs...
This is absolutely false. A DMs work is only the above.....................................UNLESS HE CHOOSES OTHERWISE. That's the key. C-H-O-I-C-E.
further, as Mand said like 35 pages or so ago... the first choice in every section could be the most simplistic choice, a choice that puts the complexity of the rule, just a step below the complexity of a traditional AD&D/3.0 rule, making it more easy for a beginner to learn. This would be your default, if you decide to run the beginning game...
Default doesn't need to be simple, and in many cases should not be the simplest approach. Default needs to be fun and playable right out of the box.
all your choices of A B C or D are choice "A"... no thinking, conversations, discussions etc. "since were all new here, we'll be playing the beginning game... where all choices are the A choice." no work, no effort, and more playable... (ahem) right out of the box.
All choices of A =/= a smooth playing and fun game. Default needs to be coherent, not just a jumbled bunch of "A" choices.
Not playable out of the box equals a failed product.You're going to need to explain why you feel that the DM and players should be forced into many hours of extra work.Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Eberron, and so on. Some (many) of us work
I don't get all the hoopla, the Core is already there:
-AC -HP -Ability Scores -Ability Checks -Saving Throws -Roll a d20 to do stuff
After that, whatever.
Don't use feats, fine.
We don't need no stinking skills! Great, more power to ya.
Slap on an AEDU structure to a class, groovy.
What I am already doing with the chassis of 5th Ed, is experimenting with converting things from every other edition (which I have DMed consistently), and it is by far the most elegant edition for conversions (recently I converted some 4th Ed monsters: Solamith demon, Satyr Piper, Nighthag, I know it came before, but the 4th Ed one rocks; and working on Incarnum from 3rd Ed).
Whatever "They" do, we can all do our own thing with "It".
I don't get all the hoopla, the Core is already there:-AC-HP-Ability Scores-Ability Checks-Saving Throws-Roll a d20 to do stuffAfter that, whatever.Don't use feats, fine.We don't need no stinking skills! Great, more power to ya.Slap on an AEDU struc
We want a game that rises above differences of play styles, campaign settings, and editions, one that takes the fundamental essence of D&D and brings it to the forefront of the game. In short, we want a game that is as simple or complex as you please, its action focused on combat, intrigue, and exploration as you desire. We want a game that is unmistakably D&D, but one that can easily become your D&D, the game that you want to run and play.
www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...
So, we need to talk about what the “fundamental essence of D&D”.
So, we need to talk about what the “fundamental essence of D&D”.
I think the traditional PHB classes and races should make the cut, perhaps with the addition of Warlord and Warlock to the PHB default and :cringe: dragonborn as a default race.
I was thinking that the Player's Handbook defaults across editions would be a good demarkation. From my recollection that would be dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, halflings, half-orcs, humans, dragonborn and tiefling. Eladrin seem to be going back to high elves. Classes would be cleric, druid, fighter, ranger, paladin, magic-user, illusionist, thief, assassin, monk, bard, barbarian, sorcerer, warlock and warlord. That's a pretty big list and should make almost everyone happy.
While Dragonborn should appear in the Core Rulebook, it is a good example of a race that should be an “option”, in the same way background is an option.
I was thinking that the Player's Handbook defaults across editions would be a good demarkation. From my recollection that would be dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, halflings, half-orcs, humans, dragonborn and tiefling. Eladrin seem to be going b
D&D has never been playable "out of the box" its not a video game where you turn on the computer and wait three minutes before you start shooting. You read the books, you expirement a bit, you make characters, you make your dungon or you take hours and hours reading a module. It takes work to do it right, but thats half the fun of D&D "creation" creating your characters creating your plots and subplots. This whole "out of the box" thing is false.
If you dont enjoy those things I think that may be why you see it as work, and I dont, kinda like taking art in college, you see that as I gotta finish a drawing by next tuesday, were somebody else that loves art is saying I get to do drawings till tuesday!
side note: that whole "I'll just run the modules" mentality irks me. I have a job, am helping to raise two kids, have an activism organization I work with at least once a week, I'm starting to volunteer at a wherehouse for a food bank, have pets, bills, IRS debts, and everything else that goes along with living a full life after 30. I make the time to do what I love because life IS short and time is fleeting.
I personally think creating worlds and plots etc. is where most of the creativity of the hobby comes in. your building skills in imagination and working out situations. running sandbox style really isnt something that can be taught with a book, and improving an adventure while making it seem every bit as good or better than what's written in a module is something that takes a long time to get down, years. I see it as almost like acting or stand up, you can have tallent but until you get in years of practice it isnt worh shite.
more and more, I find that people who have only gamed the way you describe cant do it, they simply lack the ability, and I think thats pretty sad.
D&D has never been playable "out of the box" its not a video game where you turn on the computer and wait three minutes before you start shooting. You read the books, you expirement a bit, you make characters, you make your dungon or you take hours a
I think the traditional PHB classes and races should make the cut, perhaps with the addition of Warlord and Warlock to the PHB default and :cringe: dragonborn as a default race.
I was thinking that the Player's Handbook defaults across editions would be a good demarkation. From my recollection that would be dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, halflings, half-orcs, humans, dragonborn and tiefling. Eladrin seem to be going back to high elves. Classes would be cleric, druid, fighter, ranger, paladin, magic-user, illusionist, thief, assassin, monk, bard, barbarian, sorcerer, warlock and warlord. That's a pretty big list and should make almost everyone happy.
While Dragonborn should appear in the Core Rulebook, it is a good example of a race that should be an “option”, in the same way background is an option.
First, I don't ascribe to the "easy" determination of default. There's nothing harder about a cleric than a wizard.
Second, my understanding of 5e is that all races and classes are options, whether they are default or not, so warforged can be both default and optional.
I was thinking that the Player's Handbook defaults across editions would be a good demarkation. From my recollection that would be dwarves, elves, gnomes, half-elves, halflings, half-orcs, humans, dragonborn and tiefling. Eladrin seem to be going b
WotC and the D&D community need to face that fact. People aren't going to be happy if somebody else's D&D gets labeled default while theirs gets labeled optional, especially after years of edition warring.
Fact
@Baal. Playable out of the box is an important goal. Fact
D&D has never been playable "out of the box" its not a video game where you turn on the computer and wait three minutes before you start shooting. You read the books, you expirement a bit, you make characters, you make your dungon or you take hours and hours reading a module. It takes work to do it right, but thats half the fun of D&D "creation" creating your characters creating your plots and subplots. This whole "out of the box" thing is false.
Um. That's playable out of the box. Playable out of the box means that all you need to do is learn the default rules and go. There's nothing that says you have to be able to play it the moment you open the box. No game is like that unless you've already learned the game somewhere else previously.
I personally think creating worlds and plots etc. is where most of the creativity of the hobby comes in. your building skills in imagination and working out situations. running sandbox style really isnt something that can be taught with a book, and improving an adventure while making it seem every bit as good or better than what's written in a module is something that takes a long time to get down, years. I see it as almost like acting or stand up, you can have tallent but until you get in years of practice it isnt worh shite.
Awesome. The game has always been set up so that people like you can opt to build their own worlds. The game should not expect it.
more and more, I find that people who have only gamed the way you describe cant do it, they simply lack the ability, and I think thats pretty sad.
Stop looking in gutters and start looking in game stores. If you think that most of us in that situation don't have the ability, but simply lack the time, then you are grossly mistaken and need to learn otherwise. Consider this your education on the matter.
Um. That's playable out of the box. Playable out of the box means that all you need to do is learn the default rules and go. There's nothing that says you have to be able to play it the moment you open the box. No game is like that unless you've
Second, my understanding of 5e is that all races and classes are options, whether they are default or not, so warforged can be both default and optional.
I know the designers have talked about all of the PH races being available in the 5e book. But they make it clear, not all of these races are “core”. They specifically refer to the “core four”: Human, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling. Personally, for me, the Hobbit seems less “core” for D&D. So the “core three” - Human, Elf, and Dwarf, without Hobbit - may be a better “core” among the initial offering of races.
The designers are still using the word “core” in contradictory ways. Is anything in the Core Rulebook core? Or are only the minimal set of defaults core? It boils down to whether “backgrounds” are “core” or not.
I know the designers have talked about all of the PH races being available in the 5e book. But they make it clear, not all of these races are “core”. They specifically refer to the “core four”: Human, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling.
Thanks to the edition wars, what is and isn't D&D is a very loaded question, and as a result what is and isn't "default" is also a loaded question.
What are you talking about? Default is simply a coherent rule set that allows playability right out of the box. Nothing more. Nothing less. Editions don't play into it at all.
The statements seem to contradict each other. Here, it says:
“Default is simply a coherent rule set that allows playability.. Nothing more..”
But here it says:
“First, I don't ascribe to the easy determination of default.”
The latter makes it seem like there is a “right” playstyle, and default must include every element that is necessary for the “right” way to play.
What are you talking about? Default is simply a coherent rule set that allows playability right out of the box. Nothing more. Nothing less. Editions don't play into it at all. [/quote]The statements seem to contradict each other. Here, it says:&l
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about "This could be in your game if you wanted, or you can just omit it." options.
I'm talking about "Some form of this rule must be in your game, it is a fundmental mechanic. You can use option A, B, or C but only one of them."
Among the “game requires you to choose one of the following options in order for the game to work”. Agree it is probably between 10 and 20. Some are dramatic choices, some are minor.
Among the “game requires you to choose one of the following options in order for the game to work”. Agree it is probably between 10 and 20. Some are dramatic choices, some are minor.
"The latter makes it seem like there is a “right” playstyle"
There absolutely is a "right" playstyle. It's the one that ensures everyone in the group is enjoying themselves.
The default will almost never be the right way, because no one will know what the right way is until their group has tried the game and seen what they like and don't like.
The default simply gives you a place to start.
"The latter makes it seem like there is a “right” playstyle"There absolutely is a "right" playstyle. It's the one that ensures everyone in the group is enjoying themselves.The default will almost never be the right way, because no one wil
Does it take more time to invent all of the options and house rules you want to use, or to read an optional rule and decide whther or not you want to use it?
never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable.
Ah. So you advocate the "This is stupid. I as the DM say we this way instead." DM Fiat phase in the middle of an adventure. One of my first DMs warned be about such DMs, enough that I know to avoid them like the plague. I like to know what game I'm getting into beforehand, and am not a big fan of having the rug pulled out from underneath me like that.
Whatever floats your boat. I prefer to play in a game where we aren't forced into playing a situation stupidly because a rule doesn't fit right.
But it is the DM who gets to say the situation is stupid and the rule doesn't fit right, and the player who doesn't like that just gets the shaft or gets to look like a heel and walk out on your game mid-adventure. Can you see how setting up the rules beforehand so that said player knows what to expect sets him up to not lose horribly?
never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable.[/quote]Ah. So you advocate the "This is stupid. I as the DM say we t
"The latter makes it seem like there is a “right” playstyle"
There absolutely is a "right" playstyle. It's the one that ensures everyone in the group is enjoying themselves.
The default will almost never be the right way, because no one will know what the right way is until their group has tried the game and seen what they like and don't like.
The default simply gives you a place to start.
I agree with the above sentiment.
To me this means, the place to start should be simple, easy and minimal, to encourage dabbling with different options as soon as possible.
The designers talk about the “essence” of D&D. The essence and the place to start can be the same thing.
I agree with the above sentiment.To me this means, the place to start should be simple, easy and minimal, to encourage dabbling with different options as soon as possible.The designers talk about the “essence” of D&D. The essence and the
I think - and please correct me if I am under a misaprehension gained from other threads Haldrik - that you also feel the "default" options should be designed to be deliberately incomplete and unsatisfactory in the long term, so that they are eventually abandoned. A sort of rules "planned obsolescence".
And on that, we DON'T agree.
I think - and please correct me if I am under a misaprehension gained from other threads Haldrik - that you also feel the "default" options should be designed to be deliberately incomplete and unsatisfactory in the long term, so that they are eventua
I think - and please correct me if I am under a misaprehension gained from other threads Haldrik - that you also feel the "default" options should be designed to be deliberately incomplete and unsatisfactory in the long term, so that they are eventually abandoned. A sort of rules "planned obsolescence".
And on that, we DON'T agree.
To be clear, the “default” should be “non-personalized”. Personal choices are desirable, but they are just that, personal. They cant be default.
When talking about the Easy Setting, I want
• features that are as easy as possible to understand • the “essential” features that will be true for the defining majority of all D&D games.
For example of “essential”, most D&D games will probably have at least one player who is playing an Elf character. Therefore, the Easy Setting should probably include a choice of Elf race in the “place to start”.
Players will want to make their game their own. They will do this by adding races that they especially identify with. Some will want Warforged, some Drow, some Tiefling, and so on. Each of these other optional races are important to make available, but they dont work well as a “place to start” because only a minority of games will have players with each of these races. In other words, there are diminishing returns for how many races to list. On the one hand, the picking a race is probably an “essential” part of the D&D experience. However, at a certain point the extra information that starting players need to read becomes less helpful. Later, when the players understand the game, they will pick one or more of these other races to personalize their experience.
So, it is impossible for something to be both “default” and “personalized”. The default should strive for minimal intro. Let players who have a better sense of how things work and what they want actively choose the options beyond the minimal.
To be clear, the “default” should be “non-personalized”. Personal choices are desirable, but they are just that, personal. They cant be default.When talking about the Easy Setting, I want• features that are as easy as pos
"The default shouldn't validate one playstyle over others."
True, to a point. When choosing the default options, whether players of anyone edition will interperet that option as "validating" their playstyle should not even enter the designers minds.
They should be thinking only of what are the best/easiest options for getting people started with the game.
"The default shouldn't validate one playstyle over others."True, to a point. When choosing the default options, whether players of anyone edition will interperet that option as "validating" their playstyle should not even enter the designers minds.Th
Why have "default" options at all? That just encourages all other "non-default" options to be negated by labelling. What is wrong with a game simply of options?
Why have "default" options at all? That just encourages all other "non-default" options to be negated by labelling. What is wrong with a game simply of options?
Thanks to the edition wars, what is and isn't D&D is a very loaded question, and as a result what is and isn't "default" is also a loaded question.
What are you talking about? Default is simply a coherent rule set that allows playability right out of the box. Nothing more. Nothing less. Editions don't play into it at all.
The statements seem to contradict each other. Here, it says:
“Default is simply a coherent rule set that allows playability.. Nothing more..”
But here it says:
“First, I don't ascribe to the easy determination of default.”
The latter makes it seem like there is a “right” playstyle, and default must include every element that is necessary for the “right” way to play.
No. No contradiction. I just see the "easy" suggestions put forth so far as so easy, my dog could play it. We don't need a game built for people with the IQ of my dog. The basic classses, races and weapons of the previous editions are "easy" enough for people 9 years old or older with an average intelligence to quickly pick it up.
What are you talking about? Default is simply a coherent rule set that allows playability right out of the box. Nothing more. Nothing less. Editions don't play into it at all. [/quote]The statements seem to contradict each other. Here, it says:&l
But it is the DM who gets to say the situation is stupid and the rule doesn't fit right, and the player who doesn't like that just gets the shaft or gets to look like a heel and walk out on your game mid-adventure. Can you see how setting up the rules beforehand so that said player knows what to expect sets him up to not lose horribly?
What I see are grossly incorrect assumptions on your part on how my game runs. Have fun with your delusions.
What I see are grossly incorrect assumptions on your part on how my game runs. Have fun with your delusions.
But it is the DM who gets to say the situation is stupid and the rule doesn't fit right, and the player who doesn't like that just gets the shaft or gets to look like a heel and walk out on your game mid-adventure. Can you see how setting up the rules beforehand so that said player knows what to expect sets him up to not lose horribly?
What I see are grossly incorrect assumptions on your part on how my game runs. Have fun with your delusions.
"never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable."
So you didn't write that? You as the DM don't just make a split second ruling and enact it? Did someone hack your account?
How can questions be inaccurate assumptions? Aren't they giving you an opportunity to respond and potentially refine your statements as opposed to dictating your position for you?
What I see are grossly incorrect assumptions on your part on how my game runs. Have fun with your delusions.[/quote]"never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to
"Why have "default" options at all? That just encourages all other "non-default" options to be negated by labelling. What is wrong with a game simply of options?"
Chakravant
There is a whole 'nother thread on that topic. But to summarize:
I think a big part of the answer is how many mutually exclusive rule choices do you think will have to be made before play can start. If you think it's a really low number, then you don't think the risks ("labelling") of having a default option are worth it.
If you think that number will be quite high, to encourage maximum play diversity (as I do), then you probably think a default option is absolutely essential to help new players even get the game off the ground.
And if you are semantically hung up on the nuances of the actual word "default", there is ANOTHER 'nother thread for that, but I'm not going there again. That way lies madness.
"Why have "default" options at all? That just encourages all other "non-default" options to be negated by labelling. What is wrong with a game simply of options?"ChakravantThere is a whole 'nother thread on that topic. But to summarize:I think a b
But it is the DM who gets to say the situation is stupid and the rule doesn't fit right, and the player who doesn't like thatjust gets the shaft or gets to look like a heel and walk out on your game mid-adventure. Can you see how setting up the rules beforehand so that said player knows what to expect sets him up to not lose horribly?
What I see are grossly incorrect assumptions on your part on how my game runs. Have fun with your delusions.
"never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable."
So you didn't write that? You as the DM don't just make a split second ruling and enact it? Did someone hack your account?
Why would it take me any longer than a few seconds? You are making assumptions about player reactions. I'm very, very good what I do and 95%+ of the time, the players just go with it and continue having a great time. The other once in a blue moon occasions they will bring up an argument and a discussion will ensue.
You really need to work on your wild assumptions. None of the bolded parts above has ever happened in my game.
What I see are grossly incorrect assumptions on your part on how my game runs. Have fun with your delusions.[/quote]"never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to
"Why have "default" options at all? That just encourages all other "non-default" options to be negated by labelling. What is wrong with a game simply of options?"
Chakravant
There is a whole 'nother thread on that topic. But to summarize:
I think a big part of the answer is how many mutually exclusive rule choices do you think will have to be made before play can start. If you think it's a really low number, then you don't think the risks ("labelling") of having a default option are worth it.
If you think that number will be quite high, to encourage maximum play diversity (as I do), then you probably think a default option is absolutely essential to help new players even get the game off the ground.
And if you are semantically hung up on the nuances of the actual word "default", there is ANOTHER 'nother thread for that, but I'm not going there again. That way lies madness.
I hope the number will be quite high and that there is no default option. I don't see how new players are hindered by having to make decisions prior to play. In fact, I think it will make the game they end up playing more enjoyable and memorable to them, increasing gamer retention for D&D as a whole.
As a fan of Soren Kierkegaard, one might say I find the neurolinguistics behind the word "default" to be of high imoprtance. I would shudder to distance myself from that stance.
I hope the number will be quite high and that there is no default option. I don't see how new players are hindered by having to make decisions prior to play. In fact, I think it will make the game they end up playing more enjoyable and memorable to
When in doubt on a ruling, state what happens, nod mysteriously if a player complains, and say "Yes, it IS odd that that happens. Almost like there's there's something strange going on here..."
Everyone loves a mystery.
When in doubt on a ruling, state what happens, nod mysteriously if a player complains, and say "Yes, it IS odd that that happens. Almost like there's there's something strange going on here..."Everyone loves a mystery.
But it is the DM who gets to say the situation is stupid and the rule doesn't fit right, and the player who doesn't like thatjust gets the shaft or gets to look like a heel and walk out on your game mid-adventure. Can you see how setting up the rules beforehand so that said player knows what to expect sets him up to not lose horribly?
What I see are grossly incorrect assumptions on your part on how my game runs. Have fun with your delusions.
"never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to spend several hours before the game was playable."
So you didn't write that? You as the DM don't just make a split second ruling and enact it? Did someone hack your account?
Why would it take me any longer than a few seconds? You are making assumptions about player reactions. I'm very, very good what I do and 95%+ of the time, the players just go with it and continue having a great time. The other once in a blue moon occasions they will bring up an argument and a discussion will ensue.
You really need to work on your wild assumptions. None of the bolded parts above has ever happened in my game.
Do you think that because it doesn't happen in your game it doesn't happen in anybody's game? Can you see how some players and DMs might be worried about it happening in their games? Can you see how this might be an issue for D&D as a greater whole, even if it isn't an issue for your table?
Can you answer a direct question?
What I see are grossly incorrect assumptions on your part on how my game runs. Have fun with your delusions.[/quote]"never once in 30 years. when I come across a problem, it takes me seconds to make a ruling and enact it. I've never, ever had to
When in doubt on a ruling, state what happens, nod mysteriously if a player complains, and say "Yes, it IS odd that that happens. Almost like there's there's something strange going on here..."
Everyone loves a mystery.
I do that if something story driven has been set up to function outside of, or against a specific rule. The players go along with me when I do that because they trust me and know I wouldn't be doing something like that for no reason or to mess with them.
I do that if something story driven has been set up to function outside of, or against a specific rule. The players go along with me when I do that because they trust me and know I wouldn't be doing something like that for no reason or to mess with
"I don't see how new players are hindered by having to make decisions prior to play. In fact, I think it will make the game they end up playing more enjoyable and memorable to them, increasing gamer retention for D&D as a whole."
The essence of our differing viewpoints is I believe there is a point of negative returns on that advance decision making; you do not.
I wonder if there's ever been any real research done on the topic?
"I don't see how new players are hindered by having to make decisions prior to play. In fact, I think it will make the game they end up playing more enjoyable and memorable to them, increasing gamer retention for D&D as a whole."The essence of our d
"I don't see how new players are hindered by having to make decisions prior to play. In fact, I think it will make the game they end up playing more enjoyable and memorable to them, increasing gamer retention for D&D as a whole."
The essence of our differing viewpoints is I believe there is a point of negative returns on that advance decision making; you do not.
I wonder if there's ever been any real research done on the topic?
Anecdotally, many of the decision/option heavy RPGs I've seen are simply poorly laid out. Mythus - Dangerous Journeys and GURPS come to mind. The layout of even the most recent edition of GURPS seems archiac when compared to the streamlined and orderly presentation of 2nd Edition Player's Option: Skills and Powers. For me and I suspect new players, that presentation of the options would be the key to success. Grouping the decisions then providing relatively short and precise access to that decision makes the process much less of a chore. The moment you have to access multiple books or even multiple chapters of the same book just to make an informed decision, you've lost. With S & P the most critical chapters are well designed and concurrent, with a logical progression.
Anecdotally, many of the decision/option heavy RPGs I've seen are simply poorly laid out. Mythus - Dangerous Journeys and GURPS come to mind. The layout of even the most recent edition of GURPS seems archiac when compared to the streamlined and ord
Do you think that because it doesn't happen in your game it doesn't happen in anybody's game?
It's irrelevent to my argument if it happens in other games. If a DM is a jerk, no rule set will ever change that. The best you can do as a player in that situation is find a better DM.
Can you see how some players and DMs might be worried about it happening in their games?
Players? Sure. Every player wants to avoid a jerk DM. The rules can't help them with that, though. DMs? No. Any DM who doesn't know himself well enough to know that he's not going to be a jerk like that should be in therapy to help them with their issues.
Can you see how this might be an issue for D&D as a greater whole, even if it isn't an issue for your table?
Yes. Jerk DMs are an issue for all of D&D. However, no rule set can change them or keep them from being jerks. A simple line in the PHB letting players know to find a different DM if that happens to them is all that is needed.
Can you answer a direct question?
Yes. Can you engage in rational discourse without engaging in amazingly bad assumptions?
It's irrelevent to my argument if it happens in other games. If a DM is a jerk, no rule set will ever change that. The best you can do as a player in that situation is find a better DM.Players? Sure. Every player wants to avoid a jerk DM. The ru
I as well agree that having to plan a character can ruin the fun. What you may have wanted to do with a character when you conceptualize him WILL change if the campaign goes on for a while. Most of my players change their minds and start deviating from the original plan by level 10, if not earlier. Having a system that would assist this kind of organic change, due to story or just player wanted variation, is preferable to a rigid system that punishes them for wanting something different.
I as well agree that having to plan a character can ruin the fun. What you may have wanted to do with a character when you conceptualize him WILL change if the campaign goes on for a while. Most of my players change their minds and start deviating fr
Do you think that because it doesn't happen in your game it doesn't happen in anybody's game?
It's irrelevent to my argument if it happens in other games. If a DM is a jerk, no rule set will ever change that. The best you can do as a player in that situation is find a better DM.
Can you see how some players and DMs might be worried about it happening in their games?
Players? Sure. Every player wants to avoid a jerk DM. The rules can't help them with that, though. DMs? No. Any DM who doesn't know himself well enough to know that he's not going to be a jerk like that should be in therapy to help them with their issues.
Can you see how this might be an issue for D&D as a greater whole, even if it isn't an issue for your table?
Yes. Jerk DMs are an issue for all of D&D. However, no rule set can change them or keep them from being jerks. A simple line in the PHB letting players know to find a different DM if that happens to them is all that is needed.
Can you answer a direct question?
Yes. Can you engage in rational discourse without engaging in amazingly bad assumptions?
I'd argue no person knows themself well enough to know whether or not they are going to be a jerk DM. They might know whether or not they will come across as a jerk to a specific group they've played with before, but that subjective bias does not provide them with conclusive proof. Since a DM/player paradigm is so incredibly subjective, I'd rather see the rules encourage clear pre-game information to prevent personality conflicts. While social engineering is not the job of the rules, preventing social calamity certainly can and in my opinion should be.
I'd argue that by your standards rational discourse is nigh impossible. Which is why I prefer asking you questions, to give you an opportunity to clear up any assumptions I or anybody else might have made. I apologize if such requests for clarity offend you.
Edit: My apologies for the spelling errors as well. This site appears to be loading oddly for me, causing letters and sometimes entire words to disappear in the middle of a sentence as my browser loses my cursor's connection to the text window.
It's irrelevent to my argument if it happens in other games. If a DM is a jerk, no rule set will ever change that. The best you can do as a player in that situation is find a better DM.Players? Sure. Every player wants to avoid a jerk DM. The ru
I'd argue no person knows themself well enough to know whether or not hey are going to be a jerk DM.
Feel free to argue that :shrug:
a DM/player paradigm is so incredibly subjective, I'd rather see the rules encourage clear pre-game information to prevent personality conflicts.
This is impossible. Rules cannot prevent personality conflicts. That's a social issue that exists outside the game.
While social engineering is not the job of the rules, preventing social calamity certainly can and in my opinion should be.
Maybe the rules could balance the national budget and cure cancer, too.
Feel free to argue that :shrug:This is impossible. Rules cannot prevent personality conflicts. That's a social issue that exists outside the game.Maybe the rules could balance the national budget and cure cancer, too. :rolleyes:
The snarkiness is getting a bit thick in here. Before things cross the line and start breaking the Code of Conduct, lets refocus on the thread subject and steer clear of personal attacks.
Thanks.
Howdy folks,The snarkiness is getting a bit thick in here. Before things cross the line and start breaking the Code of Conduct, lets refocus on the thread subject and steer clear of personal attacks. Thanks.
I'd argue no person knows themself well enough to know whether or not hey are going to be a jerk DM.
Feel free to argue that :shrug:
a DM/player paradigm is so incredibly subjective, I'd rather see the rules encourage clear pre-game information to prevent personality conflicts.
This is impossible. Rules cannot prevent personality conflicts. That's a social issue that exists outside the game.
While social engineering is not the job of the rules, preventing social calamity certainly can and in my opinion should be.
Maybe the rules could balance the national budget and cure cancer, too.
Clear communication can reveal personality conflicts. Rules can help provide clear communication. Therefore, rules can help reveal personality conflicts. I suppose masochistic gamers can still choose to play a game with another person after a personality conflict has been revealed (therefore not preventing anything), but that is when the social issue that exists outside the game occurs. The rules, especially when clearly laid out beforehand, can easily help prevent at the table personality conflicts.
Feel free to argue that :shrug:This is impossible. Rules cannot prevent personality conflicts. That's a social issue that exists outside the game.Maybe the rules could balance the national budget and cure cancer, too. :rolleyes:[/quote]Clear commun
Clear communication can reveal personality conflicts. Rules can help provide clear communication. Therefore, rules can help reveal personality conflicts. I suppose masochistic gamers can still choose to play a game with another person after a personality conflict has been revealed (therefore not preventing anything), but that is when the social issue that exists outside the game occurs.
The rules MIGHT help reveal them, you never know. What the rules cannot do, though, is prevent them or cure them. Personality conflicts are a social issue that needs to be resolved in an out of game manner.
The rules, especially when clearly laid out beforehand, can easily help prevent at the table personality conflicts.
Some maybe. Many personality conflicts are the results of habits or actions that are little, but grate on one or both people. Eventually it leads to squabbles and verbal fighting. The rules won't be able to reveal anything like that.
In any case, nothing you've said here has any bearing on how I run my games or house ruling on the fly when a problem comes up. There is nothing wrong with a DM coming up with a rule on the spot to fix an issue that comes to light during a game.
The rules MIGHT help reveal them, you never know. What the rules cannot do, though, is prevent them or cure them. Personality conflicts are a social issue that needs to be resolved in an out of game manner.Some maybe. Many personality conflicts ar
Clear communication can reveal personality conflicts. Rules can help provide clear communication. Therefore, rules can help reveal personality conflicts. I suppose masochistic gamers can still choose to play a game with another person after a personality conflict has been revealed (therefore not preventing anything), but that is when the social issue that exists outside the game occurs.
The rules MIGHT help reveal them, you never know. What the rules cannot do, though, is prevent them or cure them. Personality conflicts are a social issue that needs to be resolved in an out of game manner.
The rules, especially when clearly laid out beforehand, can easily help prevent at the table personality conflicts.
Some maybe. Many personality conflicts are the results of habits or actions that are little, but grate on one or both people. Eventually it leads to squabbles and verbal fighting. The rules won't be able to reveal anything like that.
In any case, nothing you've said here has any bearing on how I run my games or house ruling on the fly when a problem comes up. There is nothing wrong with a DM coming up with a rule on the spot to fix an issue that comes to light during a game.
For you, yes. I've seen it destroy gaming groups. I want D&D to be the best it can be for as many as possible, not just the best it can be for you or me. House ruling on the fly is something I've seen lead to many squabbles and verbal fighting. I'd rather help prevent that as much as possible, especially for newer players who haven't been around since "the dawn of time", i. e. the two of us . As beta testers, it behooves us to ask how we can improve the experience for those who are not us. I'd argue more options, no default and no core can lead to that. As long as making those decisions is made easy, the DM and players have a much clearer idea as to how the game will be run, and what rules they can expect. It isn't so much about how one runs their games as it is a question of whether or not we should encourage others to run their games the way anybody else does.
The rules MIGHT help reveal them, you never know. What the rules cannot do, though, is prevent them or cure them. Personality conflicts are a social issue that needs to be resolved in an out of game manner.Some maybe. Many personality conflicts ar
A default set of starting play options isn't for you. Or Maxperson. Or Emerikol. Or me, for that matter.
I would theorize it's not for anyone on these boards. The simple fact we are here having this debate already marks us as people who don't mind navigating a vast raft of complex choices for our hobby.
It's the NEW players - the ones the game and hobby desperately need - that will need it.
Are we so tied up in making sure someone elses favourite method doesn't appears on the imaginary marquee before ours that we are willing to sacrifice new players to prevent it?
I think not. We are, all of us, better than that.
ChakravantA default set of starting play options isn't for you. Or Maxperson. Or Emerikol. Or me, for that matter.I would theorize it's not for anyone on these boards. The simple fact we are here having this debate already marks us as people who don'
So have I, but it was because the people involved were incompatible, not because of the rules or lack of them. I think that there should be a place in the rulebook for how to handle personality conflicts that arise, including ways of quitting or removing the major offender. However, the amount of control the DM has over things really doesn't have any bearing on whether or not a personality conflict will be present.
House ruling on the fly is something I've seen lead to many squabbles and verbal fighting.
Then those sorts of groups need to work out a new way to do things if possible.
I'd rather help prevent that as much as possible, especially for newer players who haven't been around since "the dawn of time", i. e. the two of us .
Fair enough. However, I think that help should come in the form of helping them recognize potential issues and ways to adjust the level of DM control to one that might work for them. The inherent level of control isn't going to make much of a difference. In my experience, I've seen as many games end because of weak leadership from the DM as I have from a DM who was a jerk with his authority.
I'd argue more options, no default and no core can lead to that.
I still don't believe that having no default can lead to a successful product. No default means that we all have to become game designers and spend a long time as a group coming up with which "game" we want to create from all the options. That's just not good design.
Most people don't want their games to become work. And by work, I mean the kind of work you go to in your daily life to make a living. Creating the adventure is fun to me (and I hope most DMs) and isn't "work." New players especially can become intimidated by all the options and having to make those decisions. A default ruleset to allow people to play immediately (upon learning said rules) is in my opinion absolutely necessary.
As long as making those decisions is made easy, the DM and players have a much clearer idea as to how the game will be run, and what rules they can expect.
After 30 years, I know many/most of the rule changes I make and can let my group know, though most of my main group have been with me for the last 10+ and one of them for the entire 30 years. If I am running for a new group, I will let them know all the ones I can remember, but warn them that I am probably forgetting some changes which I will let them know as I remember them. I try to give as much warning as I can, but sometimes I don't remember until the situation re-occurs, or sometimes a new situation comes up that requires a ruling.
It isn't so much about how one runs their games as it is a question of whether or not we should encourage others to run their games the way anybody else does.
I'm not sure I understand that statement. Could you clarifity the bolded part please?
So have I, but it was because the people involved were incompatible, not because of the rules or lack of them. I think that there should be a place in the rulebook for how to handle personality conflicts that arise, including ways of quitting or rem
A default set of starting play options isn't for you. Or Maxperson. Or Emerikol. Or me, for that matter.
I would theorize it's not for anyone on these boards. The simple fact we are here having this debate already marks us as people who don't mind navigating a vast raft of complex choices for our hobby.
It's the NEW players - the ones the game and hobby desperately need - that will need it.
Are we so tied up in making sure someone elses favourite method doesn't appears on the imaginary marquee before ours that we are willing to sacrifice new players to prevent it?
I think not. We are, all of us, better than that.
I agree this is for the new players. I'm not advocating my ideals in this thread. My ideals would be a classless, levelless point buy system with options for 30+ classes. I know that would be too daunting and require too much system mastery for many, which is why I don't advocate it.
I still think placing anybody's method on any marquee is a bad move for DDN. That's why I advocate no core, no default, and many options.
I agree this is for the new players. I'm not advocating my ideals in this thread. My ideals would be a classless, levelless point buy system with options for 30+ classes. I know that would be too daunting and require too much system mastery for ma
So have I, but it was because the people involved were incompatible, not because of the rules or lack of them. I think that there should be a place in the rulebook for how to handle personality conflicts that arise, including ways of quitting or removing the major offender. However, the amount of control the DM has over things really doesn't have any bearing on whether or not a personality conflict will be present.
House ruling on the fly is something I've seen lead to many squabbles and verbal fighting.
Then those sorts of groups need to work out a new way to do things if possible.
I'd rather help prevent that as much as possible, especially for newer players who haven't been around since "the dawn of time", i. e. the two of us .
Fair enough. However, I think that help should come in the form of helping them recognize potential issues and ways to adjust the level of DM control to one that might work for them. The inherent level of control isn't going to make much of a difference. In my experience, I've seen as many games end because of weak leadership from the DM as I have from a DM who was a jerk with his authority.
I'd argue more options, no default and no core can lead to that.
I still don't believe that having no default can lead to a successful product. No default means that we all have to become game designers and spend a long time as a group coming up with which "game" we want to create from all the options. That's just not good design.
Most people don't want their games to become work. And by work, I mean the kind of work you go to in your daily life to make a living. Creating the adventure is fun to me (and I hope most DMs) and isn't "work." New players especially can become intimidated by all the options and having to make those decisions. A default ruleset to allow people to play immediately (upon learning said rules) is in my opinion absolutely necessary.
As long as making those decisions is made easy, the DM and players have a much clearer idea as to how the game will be run, and what rules they can expect.
After 30 years, I know many/most of the rule changes I make and can let my group know, though most of my main group have been with me for the last 10+ and one of them for the entire 30 years. If I am running for a new group, I will let them know all the ones I can remember, but warn them that I am probably forgetting some changes which I will let them know as I remember them. I try to give as much warning as I can, but sometimes I don't remember until the situation re-occurs, or sometimes a new situation comes up that requires a ruling.
It isn't so much about how one runs their games as it is a question of whether or not we should encourage others to run their games the way anybody else does.
I'm not sure I understand that statement. Could you clarifity the bolded part please?
I think my response to the default vs. no default argument can also work to clarify that statement.
We are all game designers. It is detrimental to the game and disingenuous to ourselves to not realize this. From the first time we DM to the last, we are designing our game, sometimes with the player's help (I'd say ideally personally). We need to make sure the rules help new players understand this, and help them to design their game more easily. Otherwise, we will lose those new players, as they go on to design their worlds in other times/places with other products.
So have I, but it was because the people involved were incompatible, not because of the rules or lack of them. I think that there should be a place in the rulebook for how to handle personality conflicts that arise, including ways of quitting or rem
We are all game designers. It is detrimental to the game and disingenuous to ourselves to not realize this. From the first time we DM to the last, we are designing our game, sometimes with the player's help (I'd say ideally personally). We need to make sure the rules help new players understand this, and help them to design their game more easily. Otherwise, we will lose those new players, as they go on to design their worlds in other times/places with other products.
I think that once we get experience, we become game designers. I think brand new players don't know enough about the various systems to really be game designers. They're learning everything new and it can be very daunting for them to have to try and figure out which magic system(s) are right for them.
In my opinion, the best thing to do is pick one as default and let them cut their D&D teeth on it. The other options will be sitting there staring them in the faces day in and day out, with words letting them know that those options are available and should be used if they choose. Eventually they will become comfortable enough with the game to begin making those decisions and joining the rest of us as game designers.
I just don't think they should be forced into it before they are ready, which is what no default effectively does.
P.S. I appreciate the change in your tone. I very much prefer this kind of discussion
I think that once we get experience, we become game designers. I think brand new players don't know enough about the various systems to really be game designers. They're learning everything new and it can be very daunting for them to have to try an
Why have "default" options at all? That just encourages all other "non-default" options to be negated by labelling. What is wrong with a game simply of options?
Remember, I want “Easy” options as default. I feel “Easy” options encourage “non-easy” options, once players grok the game.
Remember, I want “Easy” options as default. I feel “Easy” options encourage “non-easy” options, once players grok the game.
Why have "default" options at all? That just encourages all other "non-default" options to be negated by labelling. What is wrong with a game simply of options?
Remember, I want “Easy” options as default. I feel “Easy” options encourage “non-easy” options, once players grok the game.
Is there any reason why you think that all the basic races and classes from 1e-4e are too difficult for new players?
Remember, I want “Easy” options as default. I feel “Easy” options encourage “non-easy” options, once players grok the game. [/quote]Is there any reason why you think that all the basic races and classes from 1e-4e
Why have "default" options at all? That just encourages all other "non-default" options to be negated by labelling. What is wrong with a game simply of options?
Remember, I want “Easy” options as default. I feel “Easy” options encourage “non-easy” options, once players grok the game.
Is there any reason why you think that all the basic races and classes from 1e-4e are too difficult for new players?
Yes, first, unnecessary complexity is inherently more complex. The point is to start playing as soon as possible.
Second, if your complexity is “coincidentally” identical to your personal playstyle, it would be annoying.
Remember, I want “Easy” options as default. I feel “Easy” options encourage “non-easy” options, once players grok the game. [/quote]Is there any reason why you think that all the basic races and classes from 1e-4e
Why have "default" options at all? That just encourages all other "non-default" options to be negated by labelling. What is wrong with a game simply of options?
Remember, I want “Easy” options as default. I feel “Easy” options encourage “non-easy” options, once players grok the game.
Is there any reason why you think that all the basic races and classes from 1e-4e are too difficult for new players?
Yes, first, unnecessary complexity is inherently more complex.
But when that extra complexity takes the game from the 1st grade level to the 3rd grade level, it's really not worth limiting the game to the lesser complexity.
Second, if your complexity is “coincidentally” identical to your personal playstyle, it would be annoying.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here at all.
Remember, I want “Easy” options as default. I feel “Easy” options encourage “non-easy” options, once players grok the game. [/quote]Is there any reason why you think that all the basic races and classes from 1e-4e
We are all game designers. It is detrimental to the game and disingenuous to ourselves to not realize this. From the first time we DM to the last, we are designing our game, sometimes with the player's help (I'd say ideally personally). We need to make sure the rules help new players understand this, and help them to design their game more easily. Otherwise, we will lose those new players, as they go on to design their worlds in other times/places with other products.
I think that once we get experience, we become game designers. I think brand new players don't know enough about the various systems to really be game designers. They're learning everything new and it can be very daunting for them to have to try and figure out which magic system(s) are right for them.
In my opinion, the best thing to do is pick one as default and let them cut their D&D teeth on it. The other options will be sitting there staring them in the faces day in and day out, with words letting them know that those options are available and should be used if they choose. Eventually they will become comfortable enough with the game to begin making those decisions and joining the rest of us as game designers.
I just don't think they should be forced into it before they are ready, which is what no default effectively does.
P.S. I appreciate the change in your tone. I very much prefer this kind of discussion
We are game designers despite our lack of experience. That doesn't stop us, it just makes us less good at doing it. We need to stop pretending like new gamers are akin to modern-raised children. They aren't ours to coddle. They need to be exposed to the great big world and learn its beauty and ugliness on their own terms at their chosen speed. They need to get dirty. They need to get scars. They need the experience, and it is up to us to help provide a rule set that encourages that.
I think that once we get experience, we become game designers. I think brand new players don't know enough about the various systems to really be game designers. They're learning everything new and it can be very daunting for them to have to try an
We are all game designers. It is detrimental to the game and disingenuous to ourselves to not realize this. From the first time we DM to the last, we are designing our game, sometimes with the player's help (I'd say ideally personally). We need to make sure the rules help new players understand this, and help them to design their game more easily. Otherwise, we will lose those new players, as they go on to design their worlds in other times/places with other products.
I think that once we get experience, we become game designers. I think brand new players don't know enough about the various systems to really be game designers. They're learning everything new and it can be very daunting for them to have to try and figure out which magic system(s) are right for them.
In my opinion, the best thing to do is pick one as default and let them cut their D&D teeth on it. The other options will be sitting there staring them in the faces day in and day out, with words letting them know that those options are available and should be used if they choose. Eventually they will become comfortable enough with the game to begin making those decisions and joining the rest of us as game designers.
I just don't think they should be forced into it before they are ready, which is what no default effectively does.
P.S. I appreciate the change in your tone. I very much prefer this kind of discussion
We are game designers despite our lack of experience. That doesn't stop us, it just makes us less good at doing it. We need to stop pretending like new gamers are akin to modern-raised children. They aren't ours to coddle. They need to be exposed to the great big world and learn its beauty and ugliness on their own terms at their chosen speed. They need to get dirty. They need to get scars. They need the experience, and it is up to us to help provide a rule set that encourages that.
Everyone playing D&D today managed to get that experience and battle scars with no default. I don't see the need to make it worse on the new players to come.
I think that once we get experience, we become game designers. I think brand new players don't know enough about the various systems to really be game designers. They're learning everything new and it can be very daunting for them to have to try an
We are all game designers. It is detrimental to the game and disingenuous to ourselves to not realize this. From the first time we DM to the last, we are designing our game, sometimes with the player's help (I'd say ideally personally). We need to make sure the rules help new players understand this, and help them to design their game more easily. Otherwise, we will lose those new players, as they go on to design their worlds in other times/places with other products.
I think that once we get experience, we become game designers. I think brand new players don't know enough about the various systems to really be game designers. They're learning everything new and it can be very daunting for them to have to try and figure out which magic system(s) are right for them.
In my opinion, the best thing to do is pick one as default and let them cut their D&D teeth on it. The other options will be sitting there staring them in the faces day in and day out, with words letting them know that those options are available and should be used if they choose. Eventually they will become comfortable enough with the game to begin making those decisions and joining the rest of us as game designers.
I just don't think they should be forced into it before they are ready, which is what no default effectively does.
P.S. I appreciate the change in your tone. I very much prefer this kind of discussion
We are game designers despite our lack of experience. That doesn't stop us, it just makes us less good at doing it. We need to stop pretending like new gamers are akin to modern-raised children. They aren't ours to coddle. They need to be exposed to the great big world and learn its beauty and ugliness on their own terms at their chosen speed. They need to get dirty. They need to get scars. They need the experience, and it is up to us to help provide a rule set that encourages that.
Everyone playing D&D today managed to get that experience and battle scars with no default. I don't see the need to make it worse on the new players to come.
I'd argue everyone playing D&D today had to take a default and shoehorn/wrangle it with various house rules into what they ended up playing. I'm advocating a rule book that helps make that process easier by eliminating the default and turning the wrangling into choosing from a set of options.
Edit: Just saw your postscript. I think I can see the style you prefer and hope I can keep it that way.
I think that once we get experience, we become game designers. I think brand new players don't know enough about the various systems to really be game designers. They're learning everything new and it can be very daunting for them to have to try an
Everyone playing D&D today managed to get that experience and battle scars with no default. I don't see the need to make it worse on the new players to come.
.....
Are you seriously claiming that no edition of D&D, from OD&D to 4e, has had a default?
Seriously?
.....Are you seriously claiming that no edition of D&D, from OD&D to 4e, has had a default?Seriously?
I'd argue everyone playing D&D today had to take a default and shoehorn/wrangle it with various house rules into what they ended up playing.
I started playing with 1E and DMing 2E just days after it was released. I did not have to undertake any shoehorning or wrangling of the default rules. I just used them. Sure, there were a few bumps and hitches here and there. I would call anyone claiming to be a flawless DM their first time out a liar, anyway. I feel that too much hand-holding does not do a good service to people attempting to DM. Sometimes you need to stumble and flub a few rules calls to grow as a DM and, likewise, as a player. As for houserules, there were only a few, and they were not implemented until we had thoroughly tested all of the rules repeatedly and came to a general consensus of what needed tweaking. I still use those same houserules today in my weekly 2E games.
I'm advocating a rule book that helps make that process easier by eliminating the default and turning the wrangling into choosing from a set of options.
I have no problem with simplifying things here and there. What I don't want is something so simplified that when the players move into the "advanced" version of the game (and they will, eventually) it is nigh-unrecognizable due to all of the additions. I would rather start them on the advanced rules and let them figure it out as they go. I see it similar to playing a video game that allows for difficulty-level changing. Playing Halo: Reach on Easy is fine, and can be fun...but when you decide to switch it up and play it on Legendary, you're going to be in for a very ugly surprise. I'd rather start on Hard, then bump it up later to Legendary. Not nearly as much disparity between levels, and not nearly as many XBOX controllers being thrown into plasma screens.
I started playing with 1E and DMing 2E just days after it was released. I did not have to undertake any shoehorning or wrangling of the default rules. I just used them. Sure, there were a few bumps and hitches here and there. I would call anyone clai
The default shouldn't validate one playstyle over others.
I agree. Hopefully WotC learned from their mistake with this one.
Yeah, and the aggressive "Don't even think about converting your character!"
5th Ed is very conversion-friendly, I find.
I agree. Hopefully WotC learned from their mistake with this one.[/quote]Yeah, and the aggressive "Don't even think about converting your character!"5th Ed is very conversion-friendly, I find.
I'd argue everyone playing D&D today had to take a default and shoehorn/wrangle it with various house rules into what they ended up playing.
I started playing with 1E and DMing 2E just days after it was released. I did not have to undertake any shoehorning or wrangling of the default rules. I just used them. Sure, there were a few bumps and hitches here and there. I would call anyone claiming to be a flawless DM their first time out a liar, anyway. I feel that too much hand-holding does not do a good service to people attempting to DM. Sometimes you need to stumble and flub a few rules calls to grow as a DM and, likewise, as a player. As for houserules, there were only a few, and they were not implemented until we had thoroughly tested all of the rules repeatedly and came to a general consensus of what needed tweaking. I still use those same houserules today in my weekly 2E games.
I'm advocating a rule book that helps make that process easier by eliminating the default and turning the wrangling into choosing from a set of options.
I have no problem with simplifying things here and there. What I don't want is something so simplified that when the players move into the "advanced" version of the game (and they will, eventually) it is nigh-unrecognizable due to all of the additions. I would rather start them on the advanced rules and let them figure it out as they go. I see it similar to playing a video game that allows for difficulty-level changing. Playing Halo: Reach on Easy is fine, and can be fun...but when you decide to switch it up and play it on Legendary, you're going to be in for a very ugly surprise. I'd rather start on Hard, then bump it up later to Legendary. Not nearly as much disparity between levels, and not nearly as many XBOX controllers being thrown into plasma screens.
I'm certainly not advocating a simplified version. I'm advocating the advanced version being mostly a series of modules and letting each DM decide which modules they want to use. Let each DM choose Hard or Legendary, and change the difficulty if they find it isn't the one they want after experiencing the sum of their choices.
I started playing with 1E and DMing 2E just days after it was released. I did not have to undertake any shoehorning or wrangling of the default rules. I just used them. Sure, there were a few bumps and hitches here and there. I would call anyone
I just watched another hour of pannels this one was the PAX "The Future of D&D" pannel back in April.
Its pretty clear they keep talking about "the kernal" of d&d, IE the default, as being all the elements both a 4th ed and 1st ed player would recognize as "D&D" and make them feel ok about it.... they also said that they planed to have all the rules modules in the core except for modules which would come out with setting books.
so we are getting a default, then modules which can change the default in the same book as optional rules, even going so far as saying "this is the option used in the dark sun campaign setting"etc. were also getting settings and adventures which have additional modules (and incendntally a reason to buy setting books even if you never plan on running that setting. which annoys the crap out of me)
I dont like the way this is going, and I think their making far too many assumptions about everyone agreeing with what should be in that kernal.
I just watched another hour of pannels this one was the PAX "The Future of D&D" pannel back in April. Its pretty clear they keep talking about "the kernal" of d&d, IE the default, as being all the elements both a 4th ed and 1st ed player would recog
D&D has never been playable "out of the box" its not a video game where you turn on the computer and wait three minutes before you start shooting. You read the books, you expirement a bit, you make characters, you make your dungon or you take hours and hours reading a module. It takes work to do it right, but thats half the fun of D&D "creation" creating your characters creating your plots and subplots. This whole "out of the box" thing is false.
If you dont enjoy those things I think that may be why you see it as work, and I dont, kinda like taking art in college, you see that as I gotta finish a drawing by next tuesday, were somebody else that loves art is saying I get to do drawings till tuesday!
side note: that whole "I'll just run the modules" mentality irks me. I have a job, am helping to raise two kids, have an activism organization I work with at least once a week, I'm starting to volunteer at a wherehouse for a food bank, have pets, bills, IRS debts, and everything else that goes along with living a full life after 30. I make the time to do what I love because life IS short and time is fleeting.
I personally think creating worlds and plots etc. is where most of the creativity of the hobby comes in. your building skills in imagination and working out situations. running sandbox style really isnt something that can be taught with a book, and improving an adventure while making it seem every bit as good or better than what's written in a module is something that takes a long time to get down, years. I see it as almost like acting or stand up, you can have tallent but until you get in years of practice it isnt worh shite.
more and more, I find that people who have only gamed the way you describe cant do it, they simply lack the ability, and I think thats pretty sad.
Thanks for telling us we're doing it wrong, because we really needed to hear your elitism to make your arguments seem that much more reasoned.
Thanks for telling us we're doing it wrong, because we really needed to hear your elitism to make your arguments seem that much more reasoned.:rolleyes:
I started playing with 1E and DMing 2E just days after it was released. I did not have to undertake any shoehorning or wrangling of the default rules. I just used them. Sure, there were a few bumps and hitches here and there. I would call anyone claiming to be a flawless DM their first time out a liar, anyway. I feel that too much hand-holding does not do a good service to people attempting to DM. Sometimes you need to stumble and flub a few rules calls to grow as a DM and, likewise, as a player. As for houserules, there were only a few, and they were not implemented until we had thoroughly tested all of the rules repeatedly and came to a general consensus of what needed tweaking. I still use those same houserules today in my weekly 2E games.
Exactly. One learns more from their mistakes than their success, I find - at least in general. I ran 2nd Edition right out of the books as well - in fact, that's how I learned to DM. It taught me how to think of my feet, how to adapt to what the players were doing, and how to use what rules I was provided with to extrapolate rulings for things the rules didn't cover.
In fact, I firmly believe I'm a better DM for it. Had 2nd Edition had a more comprehensive ruleset, I wouldn't have needed to learn any of those things, and I feel they are important things for me to have as a DM.
New players today certainly aren't dumb, and I don't feel they need a rule system detailing every potential little thing. They need a rules-light system with a low barrier to entry that feels easy and fun and makes enough sense for them to be able to start making rulings on the fly when - not if - they need to do so.
Exactly. One learns more from their mistakes than their success, I find - at least in general. I ran 2nd Edition right out of the books as well - in fact, that's how I learned to DM. It taught me how to think of my feet, how to adapt to what the play
Everyone playing D&D today managed to get that experience and battle scars with no default. I don't see the need to make it worse on the new players to come.
.....
Are you seriously claiming that no edition of D&D, from OD&D to 4e, has had a default?
Seriously?
No. That was a typo. I meant that all editions had a default and everone did just fine. Sorry :P
.....Are you seriously claiming that no edition of D&D, from OD&D to 4e, has had a default?Seriously?[/quote]No. That was a typo. I meant that all editions had a default and everone did just fine. Sorry :P
Everyone playing D&D today managed to get that experience and battle scars with no default. I don't see the need to make it worse on the new players to come.
.....
Are you seriously claiming that no edition of D&D, from OD&D to 4e, has had a default?
Seriously?
No. That was a typo. I meant that all editions had a default and everone did just fine. Sorry :P
You have to admit, it was somewhat confusing.
Thinking about defaults in general, I'm trying to think of a game that doesn't have one. I mean, GURPS maybe? I don't really know, as I've never played it. But I have played, run, and/or own the following, and they all have a default:
- D&D (BECMI, 1st, 2nd, 3.0, 3.5, 4E) - Old (or "Classic") World of Darkness (Vampire: the Masquerade, Werewolf: the Apocalypse, Mage: the Ascension, Wraith: the Oblivion, Changeling: the Dreaming, Hunter: the Reckoning, Demon: the Fallen, Dark Ages: Fae, Werewolf: the Wyld West, Victorian Age Vampire, Kindred of the East, Mummy: the Resurrection) - Old-school Mind's Eye Theatre (the LARP rules for the above WoD games) - New World of Darkness (Vampire: the Requiem, Werewolf: the Forsaken, Mage: the Awakening, Promethean: the Created, Changeling: the Lost, Geist: the Sin-Eaters, plus the "blue line," or core WoD books) - New Mind's Eye Theatre (the LARP rules for core, Requiem, and Awakening) - Pathfinder - Marvel Super Heroes (TSR/Universal Table version) - BattleTech/MechWarrior - Rifts - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness - Legend of the Five Rings - Star Wars (WEG/d6 version) - Star Wars D20 - Curse the Darkness - Our Last Best Hope - The Play's The Thing - Dark Aeons: the Atlantean Chronicles
I have a feeling I'm forgetting something, but I should hope that's enough of a list. All of those games have had a default, and many have been wildly successful in various definitions of the word "successful." Some are new, or made by small independent companies (or both). Regardless, at least two of the companies represented there (TSR/WotC, and White Wolf/CCP/Onyx Path Publishing) are pretty much the biggest out there (and Paizo, as well, with the recent success of Pathfinder).
So, from that, having a default seems to be fairly workable and desireable, at least from an economic standpoint, I should think. Honest question - do folks have examples of games that don't have a default at all? As I said, I'm supposing GURPS falls under that umbrella, but I don't know firsthand as I've never played it.
.....Are you seriously claiming that no edition of D&D, from OD&D to 4e, has had a default?Seriously?[/quote]No. That was a typo. I meant that all editions had a default and everone did just fine. Sorry :P[/quote]You have to admit, it was somewhat
Everyone playing D&D today managed to get that experience and battle scars with no default. I don't see the need to make it worse on the new players to come.
.....
Are you seriously claiming that no edition of D&D, from OD&D to 4e, has had a default?
Seriously?
No. That was a typo. I meant that all editions had a default and everone did just fine. Sorry :P
You have to admit, it was somewhat confusing.
Yeah, which is why I appoligized to him. You'd think, though, given how hard I've been arguing with Mand about default and what default means, that he would have known it was a typo. He's a smart guy.
Thinking about defaults in general, I'm trying to think of a game that doesn't have one. I mean, GURPS maybe? I don't really know, as I've never played it. But I have played, run, and/or own the following, and they all have a default:
- D&D (BECMI, 1st, 2nd, 3.0, 3.5, 4E) - Old (or "Classic") World of Darkness (Vampire: the Masquerade, Werewolf: the Apocalypse, Mage: the Ascension, Wraith: the Oblivion, Changeling: the Dreaming, Hunter: the Reckoning, Demon: the Fallen, Dark Ages: Fae, Werewolf: the Wyld West, Victorian Age Vampire, Kindred of the East, Mummy: the Resurrection) - Old-school Mind's Eye Theatre (the LARP rules for the above WoD games) - New World of Darkness (Vampire: the Requiem, Werewolf: the Forsaken, Mage: the Awakening, Promethean: the Created, Changeling: the Lost, Geist: the Sin-Eaters, plus the "blue line," or core WoD books) - New Mind's Eye Theatre (the LARP rules for core, Requiem, and Awakening) - Pathfinder - Marvel Super Heroes (TSR/Universal Table version) - BattleTech/MechWarrior - Rifts - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness - Legend of the Five Rings - Star Wars (WEG/d6 version) - Star Wars D20 - Curse the Darkness - Our Last Best Hope - The Play's The Thing - Dark Aeons: the Atlantean Chronicles
I have a feeling I'm forgetting something, but I should hope that's enough of a list. All of those games have had a default, and many have been wildly successful in various definitions of the word "successful." Some are new, or made by small independent companies (or both). Regardless, at least two of the companies represented there (TSR/WotC, and White Wolf/CCP/Onyx Path Publishing) are pretty much the biggest out there (and Paizo, as well, with the recent success of Pathfinder).
So, from that, having a default seems to be fairly workable and desireable, at least from an economic standpoint, I should think. Honest question - do folks have examples of games that don't have a default at all? As I said, I'm supposing GURPS falls under that umbrella, but I don't know firsthand as I've never played it.
That's impressive list. I have played a lot of those, but not nearly all of them. However, I HAVE played GURPS and GURPS does indeed have default rules. It is only generic with regard to setting. It goes into specific detail with default rules on character creation, how to run the game, etc. I can't think of any game that doesn't have default rules.
.....Are you seriously claiming that no edition of D&D, from OD&D to 4e, has had a default?Seriously?[/quote]No. That was a typo. I meant that all editions had a default and everone did just fine. Sorry :P[/quote]You have to admit, it was somewhat
Honestly, it depends on what default means, and that ultimately falls on the players and DM. Talk to different groups and you will recieve different answers. GURPS does have a basic rule set, but all that does it give you a taste of what is available (like a bare shell of the magic system). That would be similar to a D&D starter set in my opinion.
Even with GURPS magic, it has mulitple systems within the same shell, whether you are talking about magic colleges, advantages/disadvanages, or knacks. Each is a valid approach or different spin on the same topic. So all of it is default, or acceptable, based on what the DM and players want.
Honestly, it depends on what default means, and that ultimately falls on the players and DM. Talk to different groups and you will recieve different answers. GURPS does have a basic rule set, but all that does it give you a taste of what is available
Yeah, which is why I appoligized to him. You'd think, though, given how hard I've been arguing with Mand about default and what default means, that he would have known it was a typo. He's a smart guy.
Well, I realized it - I was just giving you a hard time. :-)
That's impressive list. I have played a lot of those, but not nearly all of them. However, I HAVE played GURPS and GURPS does indeed have default rules. It is only generic with regard to setting. It goes into specific detail with default rules on character creation, how to run the game, etc. I can't think of any game that doesn't have default rules.
Well, I've not yet played the last four on the list, although I do own them. I've only played Rifts and L5R once each, too, and forgot to list Exalted on there, which I own but have not gotten to play. And Wraith is my favorite oWoD game I've not gotten to play (although my actual favorites are Apocalypse and Demon). Other than that, though, I've played or run all of those games quite a bit. I guess I somewhat get around, game-wise. *shrugs*
But thanks for pointing that out about GURPS. I've wanted to try that, and FATE, but haven't had the time for some reason. ;-)
Well, I realized it - I was just giving you a hard time. :-)Well, I've not yet played the last four on the list, although I do own them. I've only played Rifts and L5R once each, too, and forgot to list Exalted on there, which I own but have not gott
If there isn't a default, a method by which the designers figure the majority of players will play, then writing books will be utterly unworkable. You can't possibly write something to account for the 200+ possible combinations of modules people will use.
That being said, if there is a default-- then everything written is going to likely revolve around the default method of play leaving the other options unsupported until they are ultimately going to be dropped.
I sense already that the myriad of choices with no correct way to play the game will end up being this edition's downfall. Unless characters and monsters can easily be moved from one to another without serious balance issues.
I like the idea of having perhaps two battle systems-- a very simple one that one can use without maps without anyone having too much trouble understanding what is going on... such that specific foot range, specific character positioning and so forth aren't necessary.
And then a deeper system for use where you will basically be required to use mapping tools and miniatures and concerned about what 5' grid square each player and enemy are occupying and what direction each is facing.
But clearly certain monsters and PCs will be considerably better in one system or the other.
If there isn't a default, a method by which the designers figure the majority of players will play, then writing books will be utterly unworkable. You can't possibly write something to account for the 200+ possible combinations of modules people will
And then a deeper system for use where you will basically be required to use mapping tools and miniatures and concerned about what 5' grid square each player and enemy are occupying and what direction each is facing.
I want that cool, holographic Star Wars chess-type game for certain battles.
I want that cool, holographic Star Wars chess-type game for certain battles.
And then a deeper system for use where you will basically be required to use mapping tools and miniatures and concerned about what 5' grid square each player and enemy are occupying and what direction each is facing.
I want that cool, holographic Star Wars chess-type game for certain battles.
Or brain-implant virtual reality.
I want that cool, holographic Star Wars chess-type game for certain battles.[/quote]Or brain-implant virtual reality.
And then a deeper system for use where you will basically be required to use mapping tools and miniatures and concerned about what 5' grid square each player and enemy are occupying and what direction each is facing.
I want that cool, holographic Star Wars chess-type game for certain battles.
And for children's card ga-I mean wait what
I want that cool, holographic Star Wars chess-type game for certain battles.[/quote]And for children's card ga-I mean wait what
If there isn't a default, a method by which the designers figure the majority of players will play
Since when should the designers decide what the majority of players should play?
Honestly, since forever, as not doing so tends to result in a wishy-washy and/or conflicted game.
Since when should the designers decide what the majority of players should play?[/quote]Honestly, since forever, as not doing so tends to result in a wishy-washy and/or conflicted game.
If there isn't a default, a method by which the designers figure the majority of players will play
Since when should the designers decide what the majority of players should play?
Since you changed it from a prediction of what is likely to happen, to a decree of what is supposed to happen.
Why did you do that?
Since when should the designers decide what the majority of players should play?[/quote]Since you changed it from a prediction of what is likely to happen, to a decree of what is supposed to happen.Why did you do that?
Because the reality is that establishing a default and giving it official sanction determines what happens. It is a decree, no matter your denial of it.
Because the reality is that establishing a default and giving it official sanction determines what happens. It is a decree, no matter your denial of it.
Because the reality is that establishing a default and giving it official sanction determines what happens. It is a decree, no matter your denial of it.
And it clearly challenges speed limits as the world's most widely ignored decree.
And it clearly challenges speed limits as the world's most widely ignored decree.
Because the reality is that establishing a default and giving it official sanction determines what happens. It is a decree, no matter your denial of it.
If that is so, it is only because the players choose to make it that way. Who are you to force people to play contrary to their preferred method?
If that is so, it is only because the players choose to make it that way. Who are you to force people to play contrary to their preferred method?
Because the reality is that establishing a default and giving it official sanction determines what happens. It is a decree, no matter your denial of it.
Default rules are only a decree to people with the IQ of a tomato. To people of average intgelligence or better, default rules are just the basic coherent rule set by which to begin playing the game. Nothing more, nothing less.
To date, not one game company has ever been stupid enough to try and put out an RPG with no default rules. I doubt one will be that stupid any time in the near future.
Default rules are only a decree to people with the IQ of a tomato. To people of average intgelligence or better, default rules are just the basic coherent rule set by which to begin playing the game. Nothing more, nothing less. To date, not one ga
If there isn't a default, a method by which the designers figure the majority of players will play
Since when should the designers decide what the majority of players should play?
Really Mand? I've got to think you're just being argumentative.
The designers decide how you should play for all games - not just D&D. All games. All games in history. They're called rules. Yes, baseball has two ways to play. There are also other types of baseball like stick ball and whatever the English game is called. But, if you walk out to a baseball field and expect to play, there is a default.
Without a default there is little to no cohesion. Say you want to make a game. Say you want people to play. Say you even want it to sell. Say you want to make money. Say you want it to be played by people who have played similar games and novices alike. There are two ways to do this: with or without a default ruleset. Which one do you think will work better for a business?
And to those arguing about default, that's fine. Argue semantics. Change it's name, because in all actuality this is really just the "CORE" debate all over again.
Since when should the designers decide what the majority of players should play?[/quote]Really Mand? I've got to think you're just being argumentative.The designers decide how you should play for all games - not just D&D. All games. All games in h
And to those arguing about default, that's fine. Argue semantics. Change it's name, because in all actuality this is really just the "CORE" debate all over again.
WotC, please, please, please, please, please, define precisely what these words mean, and use the meaning consistently and helpfully.
QTF... core, standard, fundamental, essential, basic, default, ...WotC, please, please, please, please, please, define precisely what these words mean, and use the meaning consistently and helpfully.
In the context of the dynamics of 5e/Next, it seems to me ...
core - whatever information exists in the Core Rulebook (whether default or optional).
• However! The designers seem to be using the term “core” to mean the “essence” of D&D as the designers perceive it. In other words, for the designers, the opposite of core is “optional”.
• An advantage to how the designers use the term core is, years later, after much introspection, a new publication can refine the definition of core.
• A disadvantage is, defining certain elements as “core” gives the imprimatur to one specific playstyle, while alienating all other playstyles.
In the context of the dynamics of 5e/Next, it seems to me ...core - whatever information exists in the Core Rulebook (whether default or optional).• However! The designers seem to be using the term “core” to mean the “essence&r
Because the reality is that establishing a default and giving it official sanction determines what happens. It is a decree, no matter your denial of it.
And it clearly challenges speed limits as the world's most widely ignored decree.
Then why have the decree in the first place? It certainly doesn't seem to be serving a useful purpose if it is so quickly ignored.
And it clearly challenges speed limits as the world's most widely ignored decree.[/quote]Then why have the decree in the first place? It certainly doesn't seem to be serving a useful purpose if it is so quickly ignored.
. My point is that I know what differes D&D, to me at least, from GURPS Fantasy or Dragonwarriors or any other RPG, if the next edition doesn't play like D&D out of the box then I won't be buying it. I'm not sayin that in a 'so you better make it the way I like' way, but rather as an honest declaration of my preferences. Others will have different goals or preferences. Thats why this open beta playtest is great, a chance to voice these concerns, ideas and wishes before they go to print.
