See I'm ok with that being an option, but what I don't like is this scenario:
DM "You start walking down the dark dank hallway with glowing runes on the walls and torches that light as you approach and snuff as you pass..."
Player1 Interrupting DM "Can I tell what the runes say?"
Player2 Interrupting Player1 "Can I steal one of the torches?"
Player3 Interrupting Player2 "The hall way is dank do we make balance checks to avoid falling prone?"
DM "... wha? No, anyway as you keep walking the hallway opens to a large room with various runes on the floor. Each rune is large and is 5' across and takes up an entire tile, you can see..."
Player1 Interrupts DM "What do the runes say?"
Player2 Interrupts Player1 "Can I pry up the tiles?"
Player3 Interrupts Player2 "Can I make a balance check to walk along the cracks to avoid the glowing runes?"
DM "... I don't know, player1 make an int or arcana check, player2 eenie meeni miney NO!, player3 make a balance check... you can see..."
Player1 rolls check and fails then interrupts the DM"... Can I tell what language the runes are?"
Player2 interrupts player1 "Can I pry player3 off the tiles?"
Player3 interrupts player2 Rolls a balance check "Do i get penalties because player2 is prying me off the tiles?"
DM "... what? cmon.... player1 no, you cannot tell anything about the runes. player2 you step on a tile with an inverted E on it and get shocked for 3 points of damage, player3 you step on the edge of a tile and also get shocked for 5 points of damage... you can see..."
Player1 interrupts the DM "Can I tell what the spell was that was used to make the tile traps?"
Player2 interrupts player1 "Do I take more damage because I was using my metal crowbar?"
Player3 interrupts player2 "Can I knock player2 out with my axe without dealing lethal damage?"
DM "Ok, that's IT... GET OUT OF MY HOUSE NOW!!!!"
All of those pricks would be kicked from my table if they played like that. Including the DM. They obviously just want to sit on a toilet lounger, eating butter directly out of a plastic bucket while watching "Ouch! My Ballz!"
I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.
Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.
This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).
The Basic boxed set contains:
Quick Start Rules A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms. Player's Handbook (Softcover, 125 pages) Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level. Dungeon Master's Guide (Softcover, 125 pages) Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.
Monster Manual (Softcover, 100 pages) Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D.
Introductory Adventure (Keep on the Borderlands) An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.
Also includes:
Character Sheets Reference Sheets Set of Dice
ExpertSet
A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:
Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.) Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.) Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)
Expansions
These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.)
Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book) Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book) Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book) The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on DamageShow
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points
In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...
What are hit points? The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.
So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then? It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.
But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target? Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.
Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact? Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.
If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent? Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.
Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack? It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.
What about poison and other types of non-combat damage? Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.
If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages? Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.
What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points? If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.
Why are monsters killed immediately and not players? Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.
What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage? If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).
Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded? See below.
Damage and Dying
Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.
Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly.
Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.
Unharmed: 1 hp or more Wounded: 0 hp or less Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level) Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)
Wounded When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.
Incapacitated Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).
If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.
If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.
Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.
Dead Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.
See I'm ok with that being an option, but what I don't like is this scenario:
DM "You start walking down the dark dank hallway with glowing runes on the walls and torches that light as you approach and snuff as you pass..."
Player1 Interrupting DM "Can I tell what the runes say?"
Player2 Interrupting Player1 "Can I steal one of the torches?"
Player3 Interrupting Player2 "The hall way is dank do we make balance checks to avoid falling prone?"
DM "... wha? No, anyway as you keep walking the hallway opens to a large room with various runes on the floor. Each rune is large and is 5' across and takes up an entire tile, you can see..."
Player1 Interrupts DM "What do the runes say?"
Player2 Interrupts Player1 "Can I pry up the tiles?"
Player3 Interrupts Player2 "Can I make a balance check to walk along the cracks to avoid the glowing runes?"
DM "... I don't know, player1 make an int or arcana check, player2 eenie meeni miney NO!, player3 make a balance check... you can see..."
Player1 rolls check and fails then interrupts the DM"... Can I tell what language the runes are?"
Player2 interrupts player1 "Can I pry player3 off the tiles?"
Player3 interrupts player2 Rolls a balance check "Do i get penalties because player2 is prying me off the tiles?"
DM "... what? cmon.... player1 no, you cannot tell anything about the runes. player2 you step on a tile with an inverted E on it and get shocked for 3 points of damage, player3 you step on the edge of a tile and also get shocked for 5 points of damage... you can see..."
Player1 interrupts the DM "Can I tell what the spell was that was used to make the tile traps?"
Player2 interrupts player1 "Do I take more damage because I was using my metal crowbar?"
Player3 interrupts player2 "Can I knock player2 out with my axe without dealing lethal damage?"
DM "Ok, that's IT... GET OUT OF MY HOUSE NOW!!!!"
All of those pricks would be kicked from my table if they played like that. Including the DM. They obviously just want to sit on a toilet lounger, eating butter directly out of a plastic bucket while watching "Ouch! My Ballz!"
That was clearly an exaggeration, but the underlying idea is the same. The game is slowed down every time the DM has to make a Fiat decision like that and you get nowhere fast. Where if you have expectations of how the game plays most of the Fiat decisions can be avoided and the game speeds up tremendously...
hehe You know, that description just brought to my head the totally clumsy way most prewritten adventures make descriptions happen. Very much like a MUD, describing everything in minute detail but neglecting to mention the 4 gnolls in the middle of the room until last.
I tend to do it the other way around and describe the immediate threats alongside a rough description of the room, then if the players ask I'll go into details.
This DM vs player thing is kind of tedius, but I'm with DemoMonkey on this one.
He makes a very good point that a large slice of players don't mind giving (and it's a gift, not something we take) control to the DM because they prefer it that way.
People who claim that players don't like DM control as a rule should examine why so many DMs enjoy the privileges they have. I can tell you now it's not becuase someone wrote it in a book.
I disagree that we need mechanics to break down this social divide.
We DO need better clarity in the rules and systems to reduce pressure on the DM and remove the "DM may I" syndrome from the game, but that's not directly related to this point.
Everything from "DM as god" through to "full co-constructed world" is possible under the same rules system.
As long as it's a good rule system, sure. Something that the DM who wishes to can tinker with, and the one who doesn't can run RAW. Something that gives the players plenty of rope without letting them hang the whole campaign.
Classic D&D really /did/ 'encourage' the DM-centric game, by /needing/ to be set in order by a skillfull DM. 3.x, likewise, encouraged the player-empowerment angle by genrously rewarding 'system mastery' on the player end of things.
If 5e wants to be able to handle both, it can't do it by being so primitive and broken the DM has to fix it, /and/ so over-rewarding-system-mastery broken that players will demand access to every little thing their builds require. It'll have to be on an even enough keel on it's own merits to handle either (or both) the DM's or players' hands on the tiller. The players should get a wide range of options, none of those options should be so campaign-busting that DM's will feel a need to ban them. That sort of thing.
DM "You start walking down the dark dank hallway with glowing runes on the walls and torches that light as you approach and snuff as you pass..."
Player1 reading the Arcana skill talking to themselves "Hmm, looks like I can't use arcana to tell what the runes say because that falls under language skills."
Player2 remembering the rules on magic items and magic devices "I can't take those because they would instantly become worthless."
Player3 looking at the balance skill "Looks like you don't have to make a balance check unless the DM calls for one as normal balancing on a slick surface only has to be rolled for in combat or other stressful situations."
DM "... as you keep walking the hallway opens to a large room with various runes on the floor. Each rune is large and is 5' across and takes up an entire tile, you can see..."
Player1 to themselves "I don't have language skills so I can't read the runes."
Player2 thinks "Prying up the tiles would be a strength check that I would probably fail with my low strength."
Player3 mumbles "Hmm, I guess a balance check wouldn't be needed to walk along the cracks between the tiles because there is no downside to the check as it states on page 976 of module 7-B that we are using."
DM "... many burnt and blackened skeletons are on tiles with an inverted E symbol on them."
sorry but this sounds like a really boring way to play. The players are spending more time interacting books than with each other. Any DM that can't handle being interrupted with a player question probably should rethink their decision to ask for the hotseat, 'cause that's just part and parcel with the territory.
And anyway, why would I want to replace the players interacting with me with them interacting with books? The whole point of the game is to have that social interaction as you tell a story together.
I think there are some great posts here, some of which I agree with some which I do not, but I can confirm that the concept of "player entitlement" didn't exist at all, not even in a marginal way until 3rd edition was released despite the fact that in 2nd edition we had massive amounts of books and expanded content. The tradition wasn't "which books can we use", the tradition was "Everything is approved by the GM and he has the right to say no respectfully to anything, even things from the core books". Above all else this was supported and repeated multiple times in the players handbooks, DM guides and pretty much anything. In effect there wasn't even a "core" mechanic, their where many mechanics which the GM was expected to pick and choose for his campaign, in many ways the game was modular as NEXT aspires to be. Above all else however the role-playing culture at the time accepted this tradition, embraced it and only the most power hungry munchkins, who found themselves often kicked from groups, would oppose the idea.
The reason for this however wasn't that DM's where some kind of authoritiarian force (do it my way or Im taking my books and going home), it was simply an understanding that role-playing game rules where all optional, including everything in the core books and the narrative that the DM was presenting was paramount to everything else and since players had no idea what that would be, they accepted with glee looking forward to the DM's creation. It was always up to the DM to decide what the rules where going to be in any given campaign and for most DM's this changed from campaign to campaign depending on the setting, theme, style etc.. of the campaign. They adapted rules to represent their game worlds. This was an accepted philosophy and players expected it in their games and frankly in my humble opinion resulted in much better games and far more creativity than we see today.
This idea came under attack when 3rd edition was released. Suddenly players where showing up to sessions with the DM guide under their arm, ready to quote rules out of the book. Good DM's battled this and good players reckognized that the DM was still in charge but the resistance to "rules are optional and dictated by the DM" as concept had begun. 3rd edition was written using the same relative philosophy of "these rules where optional", but I think part of the problem started when the DM guide become a rulebook for players as well as the DM, it was a sort of inclusion of "players get to make decesions too" kind of approach. Suddenly it was acceptable for players to look through magic item lists because of item creation feats as an example. At the time I personally didn't reckognize that as a problem, I mean I had always assumed people read the DM guides anyway (many of my players where also DM's), but it had an odd effect over time in which players started seeing themselves as part of the creative process of deciding how the campaign should be setup.
It was ok for players to say "hey I want to be X class and X race", and if the DM would say, yeah but these races don't exist in the forgotten realms, the players response was "find a way". Rather than adhering to the structure of story and staying true to the campaign settings, the mantra became "a good DM finds a way to make it work". This on the surface seemed like a positive thing, but the problem was that these choices weren't being made by players from a narrative, but rather from a analysis of mechanics, disocvering powerful combinations and abusing the system (always under the mantra of story, but falsely so). It has always been natural for players to try to find ways to build powerful characters, but it wasn't until 3rd edition where it become a politically incorrect as a DM to say "no the race in the book is broken in my opinion, you can't use it". Suddenly, people who did that where "bad DM's" or "Tyrant DM's".
This is ultimatly lead down the 3rd edition is unbalanced mantra we hear today. In part 3rd edition was seen as the least balanced edition of D&D ever and the system was blamed, but the truth was that the players where to blame for abusing it and DM's where to blame for letting them. The system was and is fine, the problem is that the art of DM arbitration and respect for the DM was lost. DM's stopped trying and players started doing math. They broke the system and than called it a broken system. From this came the question "why is this system broken" which became the new mantra of players who found ways break it. DM's who felt helpless to stop it with their powers as a DM removed where left disilussioned and started asking the same question, and ultimatly it was adapted by designers who suddenly thought their was something wrong with their system as they watched the complaints role in. Worse yet, this expectancy for designers to released "balanced" rules became a unfufillable demand and if something was unabalanced, rather than DM's and Players adjusting it, they simply used it as is, because changing the rules had suddenly become inappropriate. From that mumbo jumbo 4th edition philosophy of "game must be balanced" was born.
By the time 4th edition was released it D&D was unreckognizable. The idea of "Core Rules Must Be Followed" and "game must be balanced" became the mantra of players and forum goers alike because in their eyes 3rd edition was broken and it could only be fixed in a new edition with balanced mechanics. Worse yet every word of the core 4th edition books was analyzed under a microscope and their was more erretta than there is book by the time the players got through bitching about it to the Devs who promptly made corrections. Corrections that DM's should have been making for THEIR games. Suddenly their was "official rules" which where expected at every DM's table and anyone who tried to change them was effectively cheating, so instead of adjustig their own games DM's flooded the forums to complain to Devs about the balance issues of 4th edition. Naturally no one could agree so arguments over what should be changed where a common occurance and each new book was disected in the same fashion. It turns out 4th edition was no more or less balanced than 3rd edition and DM's still had to make house rules to correct them. Some thought the combat took too long, some didn't like healing surges, some thought X or Y class was unabalanced. The usual stuff, nothing we didn't hear about before in every edition of every role-playig game ever made.
So while the OP doesn't believe that this is an "edition" issue, I believe it very firmly is and it stems not from the mechanical approaches to the games but the philosophical approaches to design (which ultimatly found their way to the rules), and the false idea that there was something wrong with the previous edition of the game. The paradigm shift was from "The DM is responsible for balancing their games" to "The designers are responsible for balancing your games". This was made worse, oddly enough, by the fact that the design was in fact (arguably) very well balanced for the most part in 4th edition, hence the DM's job was done very well for him. Not to taste of course, but the kind of clinical balance where all the ducks looked the same. It made it hard as a DM to legitimatly change the rules for flavor and personal taste, because suddenly players where very concerned about "how balanced the choices of the DM are" compared to the designers version of the game, disecting it in the same fashion as they did the core books.
I've watched this very phenomenon break up a lot of groups (thankfully none of mine) and some of these fractures have lead to very divisive views among these groups about the qualities of modern editions of D&D. Many DM's I know personally left D&D all together in frustration as a result. Many DM's simply accepted that they where incapable of balancing their own games and now put the responsibility on the designers of their game, which to me is the most obsurd thing about the entire transition from 3rd edition to 4th edition and at the core the problem of the entire infastructure that is the philosophy on how to make a great role-playing game at Wizards.
So while we have rule 0 in the new edition, this hasn't done a whole lot to imbune the spirit of classic D&D DMing because the problem that was solved never actually existed. It was a kind of mantra that became wide spread and caught on eventually leading to designers and deal makers to change their philosophy about how role-playing games are designed.
If you listen to the Gencon panel when Mike Mearls speaks about "what D&D is about", he effectively describes this entire phenonemon from A to Z and effectively concludes that this is exactly what he intends to correct in NEXT and no matter how the mechanics turn out. In short, he is putting the game back in the hands of the DM and saying "this is your game". Its the smartest thing I have seen from this company in a long time and I support the hell out of it.
DM "You start walking down the dark dank hallway with glowing runes on the walls and torches that light as you approach and snuff as you pass..."
Player1 reading the Arcana skill talking to themselves "Hmm, looks like I can't use arcana to tell what the runes say because that falls under language skills."
Player2 remembering the rules on magic items and magic devices "I can't take those because they would instantly become worthless."
Player3 looking at the balance skill "Looks like you don't have to make a balance check unless the DM calls for one as normal balancing on a slick surface only has to be rolled for in combat or other stressful situations."
DM "... as you keep walking the hallway opens to a large room with various runes on the floor. Each rune is large and is 5' across and takes up an entire tile, you can see..."
Player1 to themselves "I don't have language skills so I can't read the runes."
Player2 thinks "Prying up the tiles would be a strength check that I would probably fail with my low strength."
Player3 mumbles "Hmm, I guess a balance check wouldn't be needed to walk along the cracks between the tiles because there is no downside to the check as it states on page 976 of module 7-B that we are using."
DM "... many burnt and blackened skeletons are on tiles with an inverted E symbol on them."
sorry but this sounds like a really boring way to play. The players are spending more time interacting books than with each other. Any DM that can't handle being interrupted with a player question probably should rethink their decision to ask for the hot seat, 'cause that's just part and parcel with the territory.
And anyway, why would I want to replace the players interacting with me with them interacting with books? The whole point of the game is to have that social interaction as you tell a story together.
It isn't that they are interacting with the books instead of the DM, its that they know what to expect and don't ask stupid questions every 5 seconds, they know what they can and can't do and the story flows way more easily...
I think the problem here is seeing players expecting to be able to use published options as spoiled babies, as opposed to player empowerment and DM-is-not-God as a valid preference with over a 10 year history in D&D.
I'm fairly certain you can't back that up, since in 3E, the DM was just as much omnipotent and in control as in 2E.
Were you on the forums in the 3e years? How many times did you see "RAW?" How many times did you see it with classic D&D?
There was a tremendous sea-change in the community with 3e. The game went from being something that every DM kit-bashed and customized into something to fit his campaign/group/style, to a monolythic entity, the sacred 'RAW.' You could hardly even /discuss/ house rules or variants. Not only was there this crushing zietgiest that implacably demanded you stick to the rules, it even demanded that unachievable holy grail, the RAW, the rules /as written/, not as /interpreted/ (the 'RAI,' nearly as blasphemous as house-rules), ignoring, in that quest, the very nature of language, itself: that there is no communication without interpretation.
The 'player entitlement' thing started very clearly, and very dramatically with 3e. It was like night and day. I can't imagine what kind of blinkers you'd've had to have had on the last 12 years to avoid seeing it. It's perhaps one of the clearest dividng lines between classic and modern D&D.
The 'player entitlement' thing started very clearly, and very dramatically with 3e. It was like night and day. I can't imagine what kind of blinkers you'd've had to have had on the last 12 years to avoid seeing it. It's perhaps one of the clearest dividng lines between classic and modern D&D.
It isn't that they are interacting with the books instead of the DM, its that they know what to expect and don't ask stupid questions every 5 seconds, they know what they can and can't do and the story flows way more easily...
I want my players to ask questions like the ones you're decrying as disruptive. I want them to actively engage in what I'm saying and I don't want them to feel like the book somehow curtails that.
And anyway, some of the coolest ideas ever have come out of a session came from a player that asked me for something I didn't expect. If they spend their time interacting with books and thinking about what's allowed, the potential for them to be creative is damaged.
