So adjusting the game slightly to suit what the group feels would enhance their experience makes it… not counting as the game somehow?
So my Rimworld isn’t Rimworld anymore because i added some Mods?
I think this is gatekeeping, tbh.
There’s a spectrum of play that runs from strict rules-as-written to complete calvinball. Calvinball can be fun, but it’s not really a transferrable game. It’s very particular to that moment and that group.
Sometimes people post wacky calvinball moments (eg: rolling damage against the floor, a free action to eat tiles, a +2 bonus to hit) as if that’s baseline RAW DND. It is not. Many tables would be like “wtf, that’s not how this game works”. So it can be kind of weird when it’s presented as obvious, as if it’s raw, when it’s just make pretend.
Imagine if the post was “we were playing basketball and I missed the shot, so I got in my car and drove up close so I could jump off the roof and dunk”. Like, wacky story but not how you’re supposed to play the game.
Furthermore, DND specifically is kind of bad at creativity. It’s very precariously balanced, with specific rules in odd places and no rules in others. Compare with, for example, Fate, which has “this thing in the scene works to my advantage” rules built in. DND is almost entirely in the hands of the DM.
Furthermore, DND specifically is kind of bad at creativity. It’s very precariously balanced, with specific rules in odd places and no rules in others. Compare with, for example, Fate, which has “this thing in the scene works to my advantage” rules built in. DND is almost entirely in the hands of the DM.
It was never intended to be a complete, all-encompassing ruleset. It’s a framework that you build on. It’s intentionally open-ended because that allows greater freedom for both the DM and the players. If the rules are too strict then the gameplay is just mechanics with little room for roleplay.
But dnd’s paradox is it is both open ended and rigid. My problem is it’s too open ended in many ways (eg: social conflict), almost completely missing rules in other parts (eg: meta game mechanics, conceding conflicts), and too rigid in others (eg: Eldritch blast targeting rules, unarmed smite and sneak attack). That’s not even going into the bigger problems like the adventuring day or how coarse class+level makes many concepts impractical at best.
On top of that, it is so mega popular many players have no other reference points and don’t realize its assumptions are not universally true. It’s like people who have only ever watched the Lord of the rings movies, and they’re like “of course movies are four hours long and have horses. That’s just how movies are.”
The main things DND 5e does well are popular support, and the very small decision space for players makes it hard to make a character that’s mechanically very weak or very strong. It brings nothing special to the table for roleplaying.
Compare with my go-to example of Fate, which has simple systems to encourage it. CofD, my second favorite, also does.
Basketball is a competitive team sport. Not really a valid comparison.
DND is a team game, and both have agreed upon rules. Not sure I follow your objection
No. These people are welcome to play however they want. They’re having a good time and that’s great for them.
Pitching this as “d&d is great” when the entire story hinges on multiple table specific rulings makes this both less relatable for players of d&d used to a different tone of play and can set unrealistic expectations for new players who might join a game that plays very differently.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t play like this, or that this isn’t d&d. It’s just a very specific scenario that is quite likely to be non-representative of many games.
That’s kind of my point though. It’s still d&d, even with house rules. So it’s perfectly fine (imho) to say d&d is great.
If it’s less relatable to you because of that then… don’t relate to it. I enjoy reading about other peoples fun sometimes and couldn’t give two fucks about the ruleset they use. But hey, different strokes and all that.
Expectations for new players will most likely be “oh, this sounds like fun” more than “i want to do this super specific thing too and will be heartbroken if i find out it was all a big lie”.
About representation i must say that most tables o played at had some house rules.
D&D is great because it allows for creative freedom and doesn’t require that everything be explicitly permitted in the written rules. It is always the DM’s prerogative to set a DC for any action and make the player roll for it, then roleplay the outcome, which is a lot more fun than just saying “no, you can’t do that because it’s not described in the rule book”.
This isn’t “homebrew”, it’s the right way to play.
D&D is great because it allows for creative freedom
This is not something unique to dnd! In fact, DND is not even especially good at this!
It’s like people are saying “mayonnaise is great because you can add it to any meal”, which is technically true, but meanwhile salt is right there being ignored on the shelf.
It’s like people are saying “mayonnaise is great because you can add it to any meal”, which is technically true, but meanwhile salt is right there being ignored on the shelf.
I think you’re misinterpreting this discussion.
This is not something unique to dnd! In fact, DND is not even especially good at this!
Of course creativity and flexibility are not exclusive to D&D. This discussion is not about D&D vs. other RPG systems, it’s about the explicit permissiveness of D&D. Basically, some people consider the rules to be permissive (e.g. everything not explicitly forbidden is allowed) whereas others consider the rules to be restrictive (everything not explicitly allowed is forbidden).
My point is that the permissive interpretation is better for gameplay, and I think that argument would apply to any gaming system in general.
This whole conversation is at least using the words “DND” even if one could argue they’re not actually talking about DND specifically. Thus, I was making the point that if you do want a system that rewards creative players DND is not a good one.
What system are you thinking of that stands in contrast to dnd’s “explicit permissiveness”?
I’m not even sure what you mean by the “permissive interpretation”. Is that the Calvinball mode? Games can definitely go badly when it turns into an inconsistent, unpredictable mess. Games have rules so we don’t argue like children on the playground going “I hit you. No you didn’t. Yes I did. I have a force field. Well I have an anti force field laser…”
I’d go so far as to say it’s not just the DM’s prerogative to set DCs for actions the players want to take but literally part of their job as specifically outlined in the core rules on ability checks.
The fact that the DM presumably set a DC for the intimidate check is also not the part here that’s in question.
The fact that the DM presumably set a DC for the intimidate check is also not the part here that’s in question.
OK, which part is?
Since you asked:
- Rolling damage against the floor on a miss
- The intimidate check granting a +2 to hit as a free action
- Using Mage Hand to manipulate items that are worn/held by a creature
The damage against the floor is a minor thing, and smashing up the place as a consequence of fighting there is a reasonable bit of extra flavour. I’m not against it.
A free action that grants a skill check to get +2 to hit on your next attack as a reward for missing is wildly disproportionate. There are feats worse than that. If this is a thing people can do why would literally everyone playing not be constantly chewing up the floor in every encounter?
Broadly speaking objects that are worn or held are exempted from automatic manipulation by spells and effects, though this is usually called out in the description of the effect. Telekinesis, which is much stronger than Mage Hand, is one such spell which grants the wearer a save. Then you have things like Catapult, Daylight, or Fireball’s ignition effect, from which held or carried items are flatly immune. Personally I’d consider that grounds to extend that same restriction to Mage Hand.
A free action that grants a skill check to get +2 to hit on your next attack as a reward for missing is wildly disproportionate. There are feats worse than that. If this is a thing people can do why would literally everyone playing not be constantly chewing up the floor in every encounter?
Ok, yes I can see the potential problems but I think they’re easy to handle by just carrying out the action to its logical outcome - which is that the player just ate a handful of gravel. Now if they’re a dwarf maybe that’s not an issue, but also a dwarf eating gravel might not be any more intimidating than a human eating popcorn. On the other hand if they’re an elf or a human or something, well even if they pass a constitution save to not immediately start puking, they’re getting broken teeth, a mouthful of rock dust, and future digestion problems.
Sure, they can take an action that is technically possible within the game world, but actions have consequences. The gravel didn’t just disappear because they succeeded on the intimidation roll.
Broadly speaking objects that are worn or held are exempted from automatic manipulation by spells and effects, though this is usually called out in the description of the effect.
I agree this one’s more of a stretch, I’d say specifically because Mage Hand Legerdemain has specific rules about worn/carried objects that can be manipulated, which implies that anything not defined there cannot be manipulated.
That’s not what he said at all. He pointed out that recommending a game and then listing examples that aren’t actually part of the game’s core rules is a bit weird. It sets an expectation that may lead to disappointment or argument.
“I love Rimworld, it’s got so many Big Naturals in it” would be, I presume, misleading *
* I’ve never played Rimworld but I assume it has Big Naturals mods like everything else
I have also never played Rimworld but curiosity got the better of me and against my better judgment I checked to see if you were correct.
You were.
