Personally I wish WoTC would just name it, so we wouldn't have to; but since they have chosen not to do so, who cares if someone calls it 5.5, 5.24, or 5e2024? None of those are 'dog whistles', and calling them such takes away from the real dog whistles in wide use in today's world.
Call it whatever you wish. Personally I go with 5e2024, but we need to call it something since calling it "5e" fails to distinguish the very real differences between the 2014 and 2024 rulesets (and there are plenty of folks that play one vs the other, and just calling it "5e" quickly leads to confusion when the speaker and listener both look up the same thing and find different answers because they're both looking at different versions). If WoTC isn't going to name it (out of fear that people wouldn't buy it if were to be labelled as a new edition), then each table gets to name it whatever they want.
If you really need to pursue that line of discussion, you should make a thread for it. This is a thread for discussing the (implied) baffling possibility that some players enjoy the 2024 rules.
Yeah. It's also pretty ironic, as none of those are correct anyways, so the person was basically denouncing themselves. (the official name is onednd)
This is incorrect. OneDnD was the initial name of the playtest. However, they found that name inadvertently led people to believe that the 2024 rules changes would be something completely different, as opposed to a revised and updated version of 5e. They officially discontinued the name OneDnD in late 2023. Since that time, they typically refer to it as the 2024 ruleset (or some variation thereon) when discussing the new iteration as distinct from the old. Otherwise they just use the term fifth edition.
Yeah. It's also pretty ironic, as none of those are correct anyways, so the person was basically denouncing themselves. (the official name is onednd)
This is incorrect. OneDnD was the initial name of the playtest. However, they found that name inadvertently led people to believe that the 2024 rules changes would be something completely different, as opposed to a revised and updated version of 5e. They officially discontinued the name OneDnD in late 2023. Since that time, they typically refer to it as the 2024 ruleset (or some variation thereon) when discussing the new iteration as distinct from the old. Otherwise they just use the term fifth edition.
I'm sort of 50/50 on it. For every thing I think improved there are things i think got worse. It really feels like they needed another pass or two on the rules, classes etc.
One thing people forget the rules are never hard and fast they are suggestions. If you don't like something change it everything can be adjusted just make sure everyone is on board with what's going on.
This is true on paper in a modern game, but not really true in practice. There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, the rules for the game are in the Players Handbook, indicating that the ownership of the rules belongs to the players, not the DM. It is also not a game of arbitration; it's a game of execution, so while a DM might be able to convince a group to change a rule, that applies to that specific case, and it's a hard-coded change. That is not the same thing as arbitration and massaging the experience on the fly.
So what you're saying here really isn't true at all, the rules are the rules. They can be negotiated with the players and you can create a book of house rules that alter the game, but the DM is not free to simply change the rules as they see fit, they don't belong to them.
the phb tells players that everything in it can be altered or run differently if the dm wants to. The dm might not even allow certain classes. There is an element of negotiation because if you make an experience unenjoyable, or people lose trust in your judgement, they may stop playing, but the DM really is designed to 'alter' rules at whim(though its not exxactly altered since it does by the rules say the dm can alter them)
and yes they really do alter them as they see fit. If the dm decides that the narrative needs you to fall unconscious, you fall unconscious, no rolls, no attacks
if the dm decides they are playing grim dark rules its grim dark
if the dm decides to alter a monster stat block they alter it.
if the dm decides to handwave traveling and get straight to places, thats what happens.
Nothing is hundred percent, but the statement the dm can alter the rules as they see fit is closer to true than the dm cant alter the rules as they see fit.
and yes they really do alter them as they see fit. If the dm decides that the narrative needs you to fall unconscious, you fall unconscious, no rolls, no attacks
if the dm decides they are playing grim dark rules its grim dark
if the dm decides to alter a monster stat block they alter it.
if the dm decides to handwave traveling and get straight to places, thats what happens.
Nothing is hundred percent, but the statement the dm can alter the rules as they see fit is closer to true than the dm cant alter the rules as they see fit.
DMs can't do what you've said, though. With the exception of maybe changing statblocks (because it's usually invisible) and waiving travel rules (because that's normal), a DM that did all of those things would often quickly end up being a DM with no players and thus not a DM at all. Indeed - I've watched several campaigns crumble and fall because DMs have tried to do them. One failed because the DM changed Knock.
Yes, it's possible to make changes. Yes, DMs get outsized weight on these decisions (in that if there are 5+DM players, the DM gets more than 1/6th of the say in the decision), but it's not majority either. There's only so much the DM can (and should) get away with. Saying "just change them" grossly over simplifies the situation and often isn't even viable. Nor should it - it's meant to be collaborative, after all. And players (DMs too) tend to be conservative about changing the rules. For generally good reason, in my opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
and yes they really do alter them as they see fit. If the dm decides that the narrative needs you to fall unconscious, you fall unconscious, no rolls, no attacks
if the dm decides they are playing grim dark rules its grim dark
if the dm decides to alter a monster stat block they alter it.
if the dm decides to handwave traveling and get straight to places, thats what happens.
Nothing is hundred percent, but the statement the dm can alter the rules as they see fit is closer to true than the dm cant alter the rules as they see fit.
DMs can't do what you've said, though. With the exception of maybe changing statblocks (because it's usually invisible) and waiving travel rules (because that's normal), a DM that did all of those things would often quickly end up being a DM with no players and thus not a DM at all. Indeed - I've watched several campaigns crumble and fall because DMs have tried to do them. One failed because the DM changed Knock.
Yes, it's possible to make changes. Yes, DMs get outsized weight on these decisions (in that if there are 5+DM players, the DM gets more than 1/6th of the say in the decision), but it's not majority either. There's only so much the DM can (and should) get away with. Saying "just change them" grossly over simplifies the situation and often isn't even viable. Nor should it - it's meant to be collaborative, after all. And players (DMs too) tend to be conservative about changing the rules. For generally good reason, in my opinion.
The phb literally tells you the dm has final say. And there really isnt a debate when these things happen. And most players expect the DM will sometimes do this type of thing. And most DMs do it.
Let say the narrative or story requires you to be captured, the Dm will simply let it happen. If the story or module says the villain spikes the adventurers drinks, the next encounter they wake up in a dungeon, thats what happens. If the DM decides the door cant be opened by lockpick it cant be opened, iif the dm decides you cant persuade the king to marry his daughter, you cant. if the dm decides a door is indestructible, its indestructible. If the dm decides The gods prevent the villain from killing you with a final blow thats what happens.
there is only a debate if the DM likes to allow debates. players are free to leave a table or quit the game but that is true regardless of following the rules or not. And while i personally wouldnt reccomend doing it randomly or without good reason, the fact remains that in 5e, the DM is expected to decide when things use the rules, what rules the table is playing, and when to bend the rules.
phb quote
"
Being the Dungeon Master
If you want to be the mastermind of the game, consider being the DM. Here’s what DMs do:
Build Adventures. You prepare the adventures that the players experience. In the Dungeon Master’s Guide, you’ll find advice for how to create adventures and even whole worlds.
Guide the Story. You narrate much of the action during play, describing locations and creatures that the adventurers face. The players decide what their characters do as they navigate hazards and choose what to explore. Then you use a combination of imagination and the game’s rules to determine the results of the adventurers’ decisions.
Adjudicate the Rules. You oversee how the group uses the game’s rules, making sure the rules serve the group’s fun. You’ll want to read the rest of this chapter to understand those rules, and you’ll find the rules glossary essential."
The DM creates the world, the dm decides whento use imagination vs rules, and they determine when to use rules in general. If you are bad at doing this, people will leave your table, but it is literally by design in 5e the DMs job to determine how and when to use the rules such that it creates the best game. Thats the contract players and a DM make. The players are trusting the DM not make the game worse with that judgement, but the that is in fact the design of 5e.
they are not simply a computer that executes the rules. The rules repeatedly reinforce this in other chapters and situations. The d20 guidance says the DM determines when any d20 test is necessary, the stealth rules say the dm determines when you can use stealth, The DM determines when and if initiative is rolled.
And to be clear the DM shouldnt be altering rules or running the game for the purpose of 'beating' the players, the main reason in 5e the DM is empowered not to follow the rules is to improve the game, streamlining, helping move the narrative, mitigating outlier occurences, or preventing exploits or rule interactions that dont help in certain situations.
but yes it is expected that the DM in 5e is not beholden to the rules, but rather in control of the rules. its a skill/art to find the proper balance.
and yes they really do alter them as they see fit. If the dm decides that the narrative needs you to fall unconscious, you fall unconscious, no rolls, no attacks
if the dm decides they are playing grim dark rules its grim dark
if the dm decides to alter a monster stat block they alter it.
if the dm decides to handwave traveling and get straight to places, thats what happens.
Nothing is hundred percent, but the statement the dm can alter the rules as they see fit is closer to true than the dm cant alter the rules as they see fit.
DMs can't do what you've said, though. With the exception of maybe changing statblocks (because it's usually invisible) and waiving travel rules (because that's normal), a DM that did all of those things would often quickly end up being a DM with no players and thus not a DM at all. Indeed - I've watched several campaigns crumble and fall because DMs have tried to do them. One failed because the DM changed Knock.
Yes, it's possible to make changes. Yes, DMs get outsized weight on these decisions (in that if there are 5+DM players, the DM gets more than 1/6th of the say in the decision), but it's not majority either. There's only so much the DM can (and should) get away with. Saying "just change them" grossly over simplifies the situation and often isn't even viable. Nor should it - it's meant to be collaborative, after all. And players (DMs too) tend to be conservative about changing the rules. For generally good reason, in my opinion.
The phb literally tells you the dm has final say. And there really isnt a debate when these things happen. And most players expect the DM will sometimes do this type of thing. And most DMs do it.
Let say the narrative or story requires you to be captured, the Dm will simply let it happen. If the story or module says the villain spikes the adventurers drinks, the next encounter they wake up in a dungeon, thats what happens. If the DM decides the door cant be opened by lockpick it cant be opened, iif the dm decides you cant persuade the king to marry his daughter, you cant. if the dm decides a door is indestructible, its indestructible. If the dm decides The gods prevent the villain from killing you with a final blow thats what happens.
there is only a debate if the DM likes to allow debates. players are free to leave a table or quit the game but that is true regardless of following the rules or not. And while i personally wouldnt reccomend doing it randomly or without good reason, the fact remains that in 5e, the DM is expected to decide when things use the rules, what rules the table is playing, and when to bend the rules.
phb quote
"
Being the Dungeon Master
If you want to be the mastermind of the game, consider being the DM. Here’s what DMs do:
Build Adventures. You prepare the adventures that the players experience. In the Dungeon Master’s Guide, you’ll find advice for how to create adventures and even whole worlds.
Guide the Story. You narrate much of the action during play, describing locations and creatures that the adventurers face. The players decide what their characters do as they navigate hazards and choose what to explore. Then you use a combination of imagination and the game’s rules to determine the results of the adventurers’ decisions.
Adjudicate the Rules. You oversee how the group uses the game’s rules, making sure the rules serve the group’s fun. You’ll want to read the rest of this chapter to understand those rules, and you’ll find the rules glossary essential."
The DM creates the world, the dm decides whento use imagination vs rules, and they determine when to use rules in general. If you are bad at doing this, people will leave your table, but it is literally by design in 5e the DMs job to determine how and when to use the rules such that it creates the best game. Thats the contract players and a DM make. The players are trusting the DM not make the game worse with that judgement, but the that is in fact the design of 5e.
they are not simply a computer that executes the rules. The rules repeatedly reinforce this in other chapters and situations. The d20 guidance says the DM determines when any d20 test is necessary, the stealth rules say the dm determines when you can use stealth, The DM determines when and if initiative is rolled.
And to be clear the DM shouldnt be altering rules or running the game for the purpose of 'beating' the players, the main reason in 5e the DM is empowered not to follow the rules is to improve the game, streamlining, helping move the narrative, mitigating outlier occurences, or preventing exploits or rule interactions that dont help in certain situations.
but yes it is expected that the DM in 5e is not beholden to the rules, but rather in control of the rules. its a skill/art to find the proper balance.
You're not wrong, the "instructions" in the book still very much indicate that the DM is in charge of arbitration and is free to alter or adapt the rules as they see fit for what they perceive as a good gaming experience. I think the point some of us are making is that in modern gaming culture, this principle is rejected, and you are considered a terrible DM if you alter the rules. Especially if you do it on the fly as an act of arbitration for a scene or event.
Modern RPG design is succumbing to this pressure and is leaning more and more into this concept. Take for example Daggerheart that uses GM resources to give GM's "permission" to use a resource to alter the circumstances of the game. Why does the DM, the arbitrator of the game rules and the story, need permission via a mechanic to alter the game they are running? Well its because modern role-players want to play a game more than they want to tell collaborative stories.
So I kind of agree and disagree with you. Yes, the rules as written still allow for a collaborative storytelling experience through arbitration, but no, modern gaming cultures reject this concept.
There is one other thing though that makes modern games also naturally less adaptive and that is that the rules are actually quite complex. One of the reasons the arbitration of rules on the fly has become difficult is that there is a ton of rules ways between classes/sub-classes and all the various powers and powers at X level. Its not so easy to muck with the system.
You're not wrong, the "instructions" in the book still very much indicate that the DM is in charge of arbitration and is free to alter or adapt the rules as they see fit for what they perceive as a good gaming experience. I think the point some of us are making is that in modern gaming culture, this principle is rejected, and you are considered a terrible DM if you alter the rules. Especially if you do it on the fly as an act of arbitration for a scene or event.
Modern RPG design is succumbing to this pressure and is leaning more and more into this concept. Take for example Daggerheart that uses GM resources to give GM's "permission" to use a resource to alter the circumstances of the game. Why does the DM, the arbitrator of the game rules and the story, need permission via a mechanic to alter the game they are running? Well its because modern role-players want to play a game more than they want to tell collaborative stories.
So I kind of agree and disagree with you. Yes, the rules as written still allow for a collaborative storytelling experience through arbitration, but no, modern gaming cultures reject this concept.
You are going to need to provide real facts to back up this claim - I do not think it is supported by anything other than your own conjecture.
It is impossible to see inside people’s home games, especially since many of them happen offline. However, we have three major pieces of data showing that you are incorrect and house rules are fairly common.
First, the ubiquity of the term house rule remains alive and well. It is clearly a common enough practice that we have adopted language surrounding it, and that language seems to persist into the modern generation. That means the modern generation is talking about and adopting the parlance of home rules, a fairly strong bellwether that they are also homeruling.
Second, Wizards collects a lot of data on players through surveys and other methods. During the creation of 2024, Crawford explicitly discussed looking into common homerules to identify things people believed needed to be changed about 5e. Making potions officially a bonus action, instead of an action, was cited as an adoption of a common home rule. This indicates homerules are common enough to show up in data collection and justify changing the game itself to better match what a large swath of the player base wants.
Finally, the many optional rules found in the DMG indicate that Wizards knows and understands many players do not play with the official rules, and Wizards wants to give legitimacy to common homerules.
Between the ubiquity of language surrounding home rules a Wizards data-driven approach to design resulting in official recognition and e en sometimes adoption of home rules, I think the only sensible conclusion is that home rules are alive and well. There might be anecdotal evidence to the contrary - but the above facts go beyond the anecdotal and strongly indicate widespread existence of home rules in the modern game.
You're not wrong, the "instructions" in the book still very much indicate that the DM is in charge of arbitration and is free to alter or adapt the rules as they see fit for what they perceive as a good gaming experience. I think the point some of us are making is that in modern gaming culture, this principle is rejected, and you are considered a terrible DM if you alter the rules. Especially if you do it on the fly as an act of arbitration for a scene or event.
Modern RPG design is succumbing to this pressure and is leaning more and more into this concept. Take for example Daggerheart that uses GM resources to give GM's "permission" to use a resource to alter the circumstances of the game. Why does the DM, the arbitrator of the game rules and the story, need permission via a mechanic to alter the game they are running? Well its because modern role-players want to play a game more than they want to tell collaborative stories.
So I kind of agree and disagree with you. Yes, the rules as written still allow for a collaborative storytelling experience through arbitration, but no, modern gaming cultures reject this concept.
There is one other thing though that makes modern games also naturally less adaptive and that is that the rules are actually quite complex. One of the reasons the arbitration of rules on the fly has become difficult is that there is a ton of rules ways between classes/sub-classes and all the various powers and powers at X level. Its not so easy to muck with the system.
I'm not going to disagree that "GM permission mechanics" exist but you're misunderstanding the purpose. They don't exist to shackle the GM and move TTRPGs from a collaborative story telling experience towards what you're insinuating when you say "want to play a game". You're presenting a false dichotomy and using that falsehood to support a change-averse narrative of "modern gaming culture" and what it's "rejecting".
Those mechanics you're speaking of exist to provide tools to the GM so they don't need to arbitrate any more than they want to. They exist to free up GM overhead so they can focus on collaborative storytelling. I suspect, based mainly on your username, that you hail from an era of "rules lite" TTRPG gameplay where the GM was forced by necessity to arbitrate and construct rules on the fly. This is a valid style of play but it's not what everyone is looking for or enjoys.
Let's compare it to carpentry. There was a time before power tools, when everything was done by hand. Then over time power tools became a widely available option and no longer do you need to know how to master a hand plate or a pull saw or a manual auger drill. More people can make furniture themselves using these tools, but they're not forced to use them. There are people who choose to only practice carpentry using hand tools and that gives their work a uniqueness. And there are people who will use a mixture, or only power tools, because it's what gives them the outcome they want in a way they enjoy.
The same is true of "modern" TTRPGs; over time people have studied how people play, learned and refined their knowledge, and created new tools to facilitate the hobby. This isn't a detriment, it's a growth. To treat this approach of having more tools and mechanics as a way of 'shackling GMs away from being true arbiters of the rules and turning TTRPGs away from collaborative storytelling and towards being just games' is to make the terrible error of assuming there's one way to play, or a right way, or a better way. TTRPGs are an evolving hobby and to reject that is to reject the hobby itself.
You're not wrong, the "instructions" in the book still very much indicate that the DM is in charge of arbitration and is free to alter or adapt the rules as they see fit for what they perceive as a good gaming experience. I think the point some of us are making is that in modern gaming culture, this principle is rejected, and you are considered a terrible DM if you alter the rules. Especially if you do it on the fly as an act of arbitration for a scene or event.
That's not "modern" vs "old-school", or anything like that. It's a matter of localized (often group-level) culture -- there has been no shortage of "the rules clearly say..." people in any era of RPGs.
But, in most groups, in all times, it matters a lot how the DM changes things. There is an (often implicit) social contract, and the GM has great latitude, as long as they don't violate the contract. But, again, that's not new -- plenty of original D&D games died because "Bob's just power tripping. I'm outta here."
It is true that modern gaming culture is more aware of the social contract, and more likely to discuss it explicitly.
It's also true that there's a much larger understanding that the GM is just another player, and that they're not special, they've just taken on a different role in the game. This generally leads to healthier play dynamics, including it being seen as more legitimate to question the GM.
Modern RPG design is succumbing to this pressure and is leaning more and more into this concept. Take for example Daggerheart that uses GM resources to give GM's "permission" to use a resource to alter the circumstances of the game. Why does the DM, the arbitrator of the game rules and the story, need permission via a mechanic to alter the game they are running? Well its because modern role-players want to play a game more than they want to tell collaborative stories.
Another thing modern RPG design does is experiment with different dynamics. GMless, for instance. Or giving the players the ability to directly influence the narrative. Or giving the GM limited resources. None of these define 'modern gaming culture', they're just the inevitable result of people asking "what is an RPG, anyway?" If anything, modern RPG designers are more interested in telling collaborative stories, and some of them experiment with how to make that happen consistently, with mechanics.
While it could happen in old D&D, at least as often, you'd get "well, we went into the dungeon, killed some stuff, got some loot, and left. Next week we're going to do more of that." Which is a story, but it's not a very satisfying one.
But, of course, when we talk about "modern game design", we're talking about stuff at the fringes of the hobby. The gaming scene remains D&D, where the collaborative story telling happens when the individual group makes it happen, and a lot of the work to do so falls upon the GM. This is as it has ever been, though more recent versions of the game provide somewhat better support for the GM and players.
There is one other thing though that makes modern games also naturally less adaptive and that is that the rules are actually quite complex. One of the reasons the arbitration of rules on the fly has become difficult is that there is a ton of rules ways between classes/sub-classes and all the various powers and powers at X level. Its not so easy to muck with the system.
Most modern games are way simpler than any version of D&D. 5e is less mechanically complex than 1e, just due to unified mechanics, but it does have more stuff. The unified mechanics make it easier to rule on the fly. (And also it's an unusual situation where "What's the most relevant stat and proficiency? Great. Advantage? Now roll." isn't adequate.) And yes, the interactions of the stuff inevitably lead to questions of how it all works together. But, unless you're a stickler for "official RAW", your average DM can table rule it all without a problem.
But modern designs usually have even more unified mechanics, and less stuff. (Maybe that's not true in OSR-land, but that's only one part of the wide, but tiny, world of RPGs that aren't D&D.)
But, in most groups, in all times, it matters a lot how the DM changes things. There is an (often implicit) social contract, and the GM has great latitude, as long as they don't violate the contract. But, again, that's not new -- plenty of original D&D games died because "Bob's just power tripping. I'm outta here."
Which is, of course, the core limit on house rules: a DM is entitled to change the rules, but they aren't entitled to have players.
and yes they really do alter them as they see fit. If the dm decides that the narrative needs you to fall unconscious, you fall unconscious, no rolls, no attacks
if the dm decides they are playing grim dark rules its grim dark
if the dm decides to alter a monster stat block they alter it.
if the dm decides to handwave traveling and get straight to places, thats what happens.
Nothing is hundred percent, but the statement the dm can alter the rules as they see fit is closer to true than the dm cant alter the rules as they see fit.
DMs can't do what you've said, though. With the exception of maybe changing statblocks (because it's usually invisible) and waiving travel rules (because that's normal), a DM that did all of those things would often quickly end up being a DM with no players and thus not a DM at all. Indeed - I've watched several campaigns crumble and fall because DMs have tried to do them. One failed because the DM changed Knock.
Yes, it's possible to make changes. Yes, DMs get outsized weight on these decisions (in that if there are 5+DM players, the DM gets more than 1/6th of the say in the decision), but it's not majority either. There's only so much the DM can (and should) get away with. Saying "just change them" grossly over simplifies the situation and often isn't even viable. Nor should it - it's meant to be collaborative, after all. And players (DMs too) tend to be conservative about changing the rules. For generally good reason, in my opinion.
The phb literally tells you the dm has final say. And there really isnt a debate when these things happen. And most players expect the DM will sometimes do this type of thing. And most DMs do it.
Let say the narrative or story requires you to be captured, the Dm will simply let it happen. If the story or module says the villain spikes the adventurers drinks, the next encounter they wake up in a dungeon, thats what happens. If the DM decides the door cant be opened by lockpick it cant be opened, iif the dm decides you cant persuade the king to marry his daughter, you cant. if the dm decides a door is indestructible, its indestructible. If the dm decides The gods prevent the villain from killing you with a final blow thats what happens.
there is only a debate if the DM likes to allow debates. players are free to leave a table or quit the game but that is true regardless of following the rules or not. And while i personally wouldnt reccomend doing it randomly or without good reason, the fact remains that in 5e, the DM is expected to decide when things use the rules, what rules the table is playing, and when to bend the rules.
I don’t think anyone disputes that the DM gets the final say. The point is more, if they are a jerk about it, then no one will want to play with them. There’s plenty of DMs who let the power go to their head and aren’t fun to play with. It’s basically the DM having main character syndrome; who wants to play with that person?
and yes they really do alter them as they see fit. If the dm decides that the narrative needs you to fall unconscious, you fall unconscious, no rolls, no attacks
if the dm decides they are playing grim dark rules its grim dark
if the dm decides to alter a monster stat block they alter it.
if the dm decides to handwave traveling and get straight to places, thats what happens.
Nothing is hundred percent, but the statement the dm can alter the rules as they see fit is closer to true than the dm cant alter the rules as they see fit.
DMs can't do what you've said, though. With the exception of maybe changing statblocks (because it's usually invisible) and waiving travel rules (because that's normal), a DM that did all of those things would often quickly end up being a DM with no players and thus not a DM at all. Indeed - I've watched several campaigns crumble and fall because DMs have tried to do them. One failed because the DM changed Knock.
Yes, it's possible to make changes. Yes, DMs get outsized weight on these decisions (in that if there are 5+DM players, the DM gets more than 1/6th of the say in the decision), but it's not majority either. There's only so much the DM can (and should) get away with. Saying "just change them" grossly over simplifies the situation and often isn't even viable. Nor should it - it's meant to be collaborative, after all. And players (DMs too) tend to be conservative about changing the rules. For generally good reason, in my opinion.
The phb literally tells you the dm has final say. And there really isnt a debate when these things happen. And most players expect the DM will sometimes do this type of thing. And most DMs do it.
Let say the narrative or story requires you to be captured, the Dm will simply let it happen. If the story or module says the villain spikes the adventurers drinks, the next encounter they wake up in a dungeon, thats what happens. If the DM decides the door cant be opened by lockpick it cant be opened, iif the dm decides you cant persuade the king to marry his daughter, you cant. if the dm decides a door is indestructible, its indestructible. If the dm decides The gods prevent the villain from killing you with a final blow thats what happens.
there is only a debate if the DM likes to allow debates. players are free to leave a table or quit the game but that is true regardless of following the rules or not. And while i personally wouldnt reccomend doing it randomly or without good reason, the fact remains that in 5e, the DM is expected to decide when things use the rules, what rules the table is playing, and when to bend the rules.
I don’t think anyone disputes that the DM gets the final say. The point is more, if they are a jerk about it, then no one will want to play with them. There’s plenty of DMs who let the power go to their head and aren’t fun to play with. It’s basically the DM having main character syndrome; who wants to play with that person?
the posts i was replying to werent really about that.
someone said, dont worry if the rules arentw orking for you, just change them,
to which someone responded that it wasnt really the case anymore, and that DMs were currently mostly just executing rules, and werent actually able to change rules as needed, partially because the player's handbook tells people what the rules are.
i was pointing out the player's handbook tells players repeatedly that the DM is in control of the rules, and moreso, in 5e the dm is actually expected to smooth things out and alter rules etc for the good of the game.
If the dm is jerk people will leave, but being a jerk is not really focused on whether you follow the rules, in fact some of the jerky stories people complain about is about DMs who are extremely rules focused, and even more horror stories have nothing to do with rules at all, but just attitudes, narrative, execution and various other things. So yeah a dm who abuses the rules to be a jerk sucks, but the main problem there is beinga jerk, not altering the rules.
and also, i will say if you have trouble finding the right balance, its usually better to follow the rules than not to.
Ravenqueen's pin feather folks, can we just talk about the differing rulesets between 5E14 and 5E24 and why you like and dislike them without it devolving into ' Modern gaming culture Vs Old School sensibilities' and ' Dog-whistles and Paper-Tigers' nonsense.
Both are good and have merits, why don't we talk about our preferences, like the thread asks?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
Personally I wish WoTC would just name it, so we wouldn't have to; but since they have chosen not to do so.......
WotC has officially named it. it is The Rulebooks 2024 and the original version is Rulebooks 2014. They have also referenced it as 5.14 and 5.24 in official communications when referring to them as well.
i was pointing out the player's handbook tells players repeatedly that the DM is in control of the rules, and moreso, in 5e the dm is actually expected to smooth things out and alter rules etc for the good of the game.
If the dm is jerk people will leave, but being a jerk is not really focused on whether you follow the rules, in fact some of the jerky stories people complain about is about DMs who are extremely rules focused, and even more horror stories have nothing to do with rules at all, but just attitudes, narrative, execution and various other things. So yeah a dm who abuses the rules to be a jerk sucks, but the main problem there is beinga jerk, not altering the rules.
and also, i will say if you have trouble finding the right balance, its usually better to follow the rules than not to.
Yes, but this is kind of the point, and it's a big catch-22. The message is, "you are the DM, you can change the rules however you like", but the tone behind the message is "only a jerk DM would change the rules in a way the players don't like."
This is kind of the universal mantra of modern gaming culture, and I would argue that 5e as a book of advice has actually done everything in its power to discourage this attitude, but I don't think it's been successful.
I think it's interesting that people make this claim that it's ok to change the rules however you see fit when this entire forum and every message in it is a direct contradiction to how this actually works in modern gaming culture.
Yes, but this is kind of the point, and it's a big catch-22. The message is, "you are the DM, you can change the rules however you like", but the tone behind the message is "only a jerk DM would change the rules in a way the players don't like."
If changing the rules doesn't make the game better, you shouldn't change the rules, and the primary metric for a game being better is people having more fun. Now, sometimes players don't realize that a change will make the game more fun, but for the most part, a change without player buy-in is a bad change.
i was pointing out the player's handbook tells players repeatedly that the DM is in control of the rules, and moreso, in 5e the dm is actually expected to smooth things out and alter rules etc for the good of the game.
If the dm is jerk people will leave, but being a jerk is not really focused on whether you follow the rules, in fact some of the jerky stories people complain about is about DMs who are extremely rules focused, and even more horror stories have nothing to do with rules at all, but just attitudes, narrative, execution and various other things. So yeah a dm who abuses the rules to be a jerk sucks, but the main problem there is beinga jerk, not altering the rules.
and also, i will say if you have trouble finding the right balance, its usually better to follow the rules than not to.
Yes, but this is kind of the point, and it's a big catch-22. The message is, "you are the DM, you can change the rules however you like", but the tone behind the message is "only a jerk DM would change the rules in a way the players don't like."
This is kind of the universal mantra of modern gaming culture, and I would argue that 5e as a book of advice has actually done everything in its power to discourage this attitude, but I don't think it's been successful.
I think it's interesting that people make this claim that it's ok to change the rules however you see fit when this entire forum and every message in it is a direct contradiction to how this actually works in modern gaming culture.
its not really a catch 22 because the idea is actually not the DM should change the rules however they want, its actually the DM should carefully determine how to apply the rules or alter them in ways that improve the game.
the paradigm you propose is not accurate, no game i have seen or played doesnt have the DM bending the rules, or deciding when to apply it, or some form of house rule/odd rule interpretation. In fact most players never even know how much stuff is altered. No one usually cares as long as the game is entertaining, or maybe they care a little but accept it in service of the overall game. The idea that dms are unable to interpret or change things is not something i commonly see in practice.
Major issues arise when the DM makes rules changes that worsen the game and generally disregard players, or just lead to a bad or hard to take seriously game
point being its a matter of execution, not absolutes. Its not, i can never change the rules or everyone gets mad, and its not i should do whatever i want as a DM and everyone should just accept it nd it will be always be good. Regardless of whether people actively oppose you, the game will suffer or end if people hate the way you DM.
Being a DM means finding the right balance for the table you are at. Which probably means you alter many things, but the players dont feel alienated, and the game feels consistent and believable instead of arbitrary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Personally I wish WoTC would just name it, so we wouldn't have to; but since they have chosen not to do so, who cares if someone calls it 5.5, 5.24, or 5e2024? None of those are 'dog whistles', and calling them such takes away from the real dog whistles in wide use in today's world.
Call it whatever you wish. Personally I go with 5e2024, but we need to call it something since calling it "5e" fails to distinguish the very real differences between the 2014 and 2024 rulesets (and there are plenty of folks that play one vs the other, and just calling it "5e" quickly leads to confusion when the speaker and listener both look up the same thing and find different answers because they're both looking at different versions). If WoTC isn't going to name it (out of fear that people wouldn't buy it if were to be labelled as a new edition), then each table gets to name it whatever they want.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
If you really need to pursue that line of discussion, you should make a thread for it. This is a thread for discussing the (implied) baffling possibility that some players enjoy the 2024 rules.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
This is incorrect. OneDnD was the initial name of the playtest. However, they found that name inadvertently led people to believe that the 2024 rules changes would be something completely different, as opposed to a revised and updated version of 5e. They officially discontinued the name OneDnD in late 2023. Since that time, they typically refer to it as the 2024 ruleset (or some variation thereon) when discussing the new iteration as distinct from the old. Otherwise they just use the term fifth edition.
My mistake I guess.
I'm sort of 50/50 on it. For every thing I think improved there are things i think got worse. It really feels like they needed another pass or two on the rules, classes etc.
the phb tells players that everything in it can be altered or run differently if the dm wants to. The dm might not even allow certain classes. There is an element of negotiation because if you make an experience unenjoyable, or people lose trust in your judgement, they may stop playing, but the DM really is designed to 'alter' rules at whim(though its not exxactly altered since it does by the rules say the dm can alter them)
and yes they really do alter them as they see fit. If the dm decides that the narrative needs you to fall unconscious, you fall unconscious, no rolls, no attacks
if the dm decides they are playing grim dark rules its grim dark
if the dm decides to alter a monster stat block they alter it.
if the dm decides to handwave traveling and get straight to places, thats what happens.
Nothing is hundred percent, but the statement the dm can alter the rules as they see fit is closer to true than the dm cant alter the rules as they see fit.
DMs can't do what you've said, though. With the exception of maybe changing statblocks (because it's usually invisible) and waiving travel rules (because that's normal), a DM that did all of those things would often quickly end up being a DM with no players and thus not a DM at all. Indeed - I've watched several campaigns crumble and fall because DMs have tried to do them. One failed because the DM changed Knock.
Yes, it's possible to make changes. Yes, DMs get outsized weight on these decisions (in that if there are 5+DM players, the DM gets more than 1/6th of the say in the decision), but it's not majority either. There's only so much the DM can (and should) get away with. Saying "just change them" grossly over simplifies the situation and often isn't even viable. Nor should it - it's meant to be collaborative, after all. And players (DMs too) tend to be conservative about changing the rules. For generally good reason, in my opinion.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The phb literally tells you the dm has final say. And there really isnt a debate when these things happen. And most players expect the DM will sometimes do this type of thing. And most DMs do it.
Let say the narrative or story requires you to be captured, the Dm will simply let it happen. If the story or module says the villain spikes the adventurers drinks, the next encounter they wake up in a dungeon, thats what happens. If the DM decides the door cant be opened by lockpick it cant be opened, iif the dm decides you cant persuade the king to marry his daughter, you cant. if the dm decides a door is indestructible, its indestructible. If the dm decides The gods prevent the villain from killing you with a final blow thats what happens.
there is only a debate if the DM likes to allow debates. players are free to leave a table or quit the game but that is true regardless of following the rules or not. And while i personally wouldnt reccomend doing it randomly or without good reason, the fact remains that in 5e, the DM is expected to decide when things use the rules, what rules the table is playing, and when to bend the rules.
phb quote
"
Being the Dungeon Master
If you want to be the mastermind of the game, consider being the DM. Here’s what DMs do:
Build Adventures. You prepare the adventures that the players experience. In the Dungeon Master’s Guide, you’ll find advice for how to create adventures and even whole worlds.
Guide the Story. You narrate much of the action during play, describing locations and creatures that the adventurers face. The players decide what their characters do as they navigate hazards and choose what to explore. Then you use a combination of imagination and the game’s rules to determine the results of the adventurers’ decisions.
Adjudicate the Rules. You oversee how the group uses the game’s rules, making sure the rules serve the group’s fun. You’ll want to read the rest of this chapter to understand those rules, and you’ll find the rules glossary essential."
The DM creates the world, the dm decides whento use imagination vs rules, and they determine when to use rules in general. If you are bad at doing this, people will leave your table, but it is literally by design in 5e the DMs job to determine how and when to use the rules such that it creates the best game. Thats the contract players and a DM make. The players are trusting the DM not make the game worse with that judgement, but the that is in fact the design of 5e.
they are not simply a computer that executes the rules. The rules repeatedly reinforce this in other chapters and situations. The d20 guidance says the DM determines when any d20 test is necessary, the stealth rules say the dm determines when you can use stealth, The DM determines when and if initiative is rolled.
And to be clear the DM shouldnt be altering rules or running the game for the purpose of 'beating' the players, the main reason in 5e the DM is empowered not to follow the rules is to improve the game, streamlining, helping move the narrative, mitigating outlier occurences, or preventing exploits or rule interactions that dont help in certain situations.
but yes it is expected that the DM in 5e is not beholden to the rules, but rather in control of the rules. its a skill/art to find the proper balance.
You're not wrong, the "instructions" in the book still very much indicate that the DM is in charge of arbitration and is free to alter or adapt the rules as they see fit for what they perceive as a good gaming experience. I think the point some of us are making is that in modern gaming culture, this principle is rejected, and you are considered a terrible DM if you alter the rules. Especially if you do it on the fly as an act of arbitration for a scene or event.
Modern RPG design is succumbing to this pressure and is leaning more and more into this concept. Take for example Daggerheart that uses GM resources to give GM's "permission" to use a resource to alter the circumstances of the game. Why does the DM, the arbitrator of the game rules and the story, need permission via a mechanic to alter the game they are running? Well its because modern role-players want to play a game more than they want to tell collaborative stories.
So I kind of agree and disagree with you. Yes, the rules as written still allow for a collaborative storytelling experience through arbitration, but no, modern gaming cultures reject this concept.
There is one other thing though that makes modern games also naturally less adaptive and that is that the rules are actually quite complex. One of the reasons the arbitration of rules on the fly has become difficult is that there is a ton of rules ways between classes/sub-classes and all the various powers and powers at X level. Its not so easy to muck with the system.
You are going to need to provide real facts to back up this claim - I do not think it is supported by anything other than your own conjecture.
It is impossible to see inside people’s home games, especially since many of them happen offline. However, we have three major pieces of data showing that you are incorrect and house rules are fairly common.
First, the ubiquity of the term house rule remains alive and well. It is clearly a common enough practice that we have adopted language surrounding it, and that language seems to persist into the modern generation. That means the modern generation is talking about and adopting the parlance of home rules, a fairly strong bellwether that they are also homeruling.
Second, Wizards collects a lot of data on players through surveys and other methods. During the creation of 2024, Crawford explicitly discussed looking into common homerules to identify things people believed needed to be changed about 5e. Making potions officially a bonus action, instead of an action, was cited as an adoption of a common home rule. This indicates homerules are common enough to show up in data collection and justify changing the game itself to better match what a large swath of the player base wants.
Finally, the many optional rules found in the DMG indicate that Wizards knows and understands many players do not play with the official rules, and Wizards wants to give legitimacy to common homerules.
Between the ubiquity of language surrounding home rules a Wizards data-driven approach to design resulting in official recognition and e en sometimes adoption of home rules, I think the only sensible conclusion is that home rules are alive and well. There might be anecdotal evidence to the contrary - but the above facts go beyond the anecdotal and strongly indicate widespread existence of home rules in the modern game.
I'm not going to disagree that "GM permission mechanics" exist but you're misunderstanding the purpose. They don't exist to shackle the GM and move TTRPGs from a collaborative story telling experience towards what you're insinuating when you say "want to play a game". You're presenting a false dichotomy and using that falsehood to support a change-averse narrative of "modern gaming culture" and what it's "rejecting".
Those mechanics you're speaking of exist to provide tools to the GM so they don't need to arbitrate any more than they want to. They exist to free up GM overhead so they can focus on collaborative storytelling. I suspect, based mainly on your username, that you hail from an era of "rules lite" TTRPG gameplay where the GM was forced by necessity to arbitrate and construct rules on the fly. This is a valid style of play but it's not what everyone is looking for or enjoys.
Let's compare it to carpentry. There was a time before power tools, when everything was done by hand. Then over time power tools became a widely available option and no longer do you need to know how to master a hand plate or a pull saw or a manual auger drill. More people can make furniture themselves using these tools, but they're not forced to use them. There are people who choose to only practice carpentry using hand tools and that gives their work a uniqueness. And there are people who will use a mixture, or only power tools, because it's what gives them the outcome they want in a way they enjoy.
The same is true of "modern" TTRPGs; over time people have studied how people play, learned and refined their knowledge, and created new tools to facilitate the hobby. This isn't a detriment, it's a growth. To treat this approach of having more tools and mechanics as a way of 'shackling GMs away from being true arbiters of the rules and turning TTRPGs away from collaborative storytelling and towards being just games' is to make the terrible error of assuming there's one way to play, or a right way, or a better way. TTRPGs are an evolving hobby and to reject that is to reject the hobby itself.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
That's not "modern" vs "old-school", or anything like that. It's a matter of localized (often group-level) culture -- there has been no shortage of "the rules clearly say..." people in any era of RPGs.
But, in most groups, in all times, it matters a lot how the DM changes things. There is an (often implicit) social contract, and the GM has great latitude, as long as they don't violate the contract. But, again, that's not new -- plenty of original D&D games died because "Bob's just power tripping. I'm outta here."
It is true that modern gaming culture is more aware of the social contract, and more likely to discuss it explicitly.
It's also true that there's a much larger understanding that the GM is just another player, and that they're not special, they've just taken on a different role in the game. This generally leads to healthier play dynamics, including it being seen as more legitimate to question the GM.
Another thing modern RPG design does is experiment with different dynamics. GMless, for instance. Or giving the players the ability to directly influence the narrative. Or giving the GM limited resources. None of these define 'modern gaming culture', they're just the inevitable result of people asking "what is an RPG, anyway?" If anything, modern RPG designers are more interested in telling collaborative stories, and some of them experiment with how to make that happen consistently, with mechanics.
While it could happen in old D&D, at least as often, you'd get "well, we went into the dungeon, killed some stuff, got some loot, and left. Next week we're going to do more of that." Which is a story, but it's not a very satisfying one.
But, of course, when we talk about "modern game design", we're talking about stuff at the fringes of the hobby. The gaming scene remains D&D, where the collaborative story telling happens when the individual group makes it happen, and a lot of the work to do so falls upon the GM. This is as it has ever been, though more recent versions of the game provide somewhat better support for the GM and players.
Most modern games are way simpler than any version of D&D. 5e is less mechanically complex than 1e, just due to unified mechanics, but it does have more stuff. The unified mechanics make it easier to rule on the fly. (And also it's an unusual situation where "What's the most relevant stat and proficiency? Great. Advantage? Now roll." isn't adequate.) And yes, the interactions of the stuff inevitably lead to questions of how it all works together. But, unless you're a stickler for "official RAW", your average DM can table rule it all without a problem.
But modern designs usually have even more unified mechanics, and less stuff. (Maybe that's not true in OSR-land, but that's only one part of the wide, but tiny, world of RPGs that aren't D&D.)
Which is, of course, the core limit on house rules: a DM is entitled to change the rules, but they aren't entitled to have players.
I don’t think anyone disputes that the DM gets the final say. The point is more, if they are a jerk about it, then no one will want to play with them. There’s plenty of DMs who let the power go to their head and aren’t fun to play with. It’s basically the DM having main character syndrome; who wants to play with that person?
the posts i was replying to werent really about that.
someone said, dont worry if the rules arentw orking for you, just change them,
to which someone responded that it wasnt really the case anymore, and that DMs were currently mostly just executing rules, and werent actually able to change rules as needed, partially because the player's handbook tells people what the rules are.
i was pointing out the player's handbook tells players repeatedly that the DM is in control of the rules, and moreso, in 5e the dm is actually expected to smooth things out and alter rules etc for the good of the game.
If the dm is jerk people will leave, but being a jerk is not really focused on whether you follow the rules, in fact some of the jerky stories people complain about is about DMs who are extremely rules focused, and even more horror stories have nothing to do with rules at all, but just attitudes, narrative, execution and various other things. So yeah a dm who abuses the rules to be a jerk sucks, but the main problem there is beinga jerk, not altering the rules.
and also, i will say if you have trouble finding the right balance, its usually better to follow the rules than not to.
Ravenqueen's pin feather folks, can we just talk about the differing rulesets between 5E14 and 5E24 and why you like and dislike them without it devolving into ' Modern gaming culture Vs Old School sensibilities' and ' Dog-whistles and Paper-Tigers' nonsense.
Both are good and have merits, why don't we talk about our preferences, like the thread asks?
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
WotC has officially named it. it is The Rulebooks 2024 and the original version is Rulebooks 2014. They have also referenced it as 5.14 and 5.24 in official communications when referring to them as well.
Yes, but this is kind of the point, and it's a big catch-22. The message is, "you are the DM, you can change the rules however you like", but the tone behind the message is "only a jerk DM would change the rules in a way the players don't like."
This is kind of the universal mantra of modern gaming culture, and I would argue that 5e as a book of advice has actually done everything in its power to discourage this attitude, but I don't think it's been successful.
I think it's interesting that people make this claim that it's ok to change the rules however you see fit when this entire forum and every message in it is a direct contradiction to how this actually works in modern gaming culture.
If changing the rules doesn't make the game better, you shouldn't change the rules, and the primary metric for a game being better is people having more fun. Now, sometimes players don't realize that a change will make the game more fun, but for the most part, a change without player buy-in is a bad change.
its not really a catch 22 because the idea is actually not the DM should change the rules however they want, its actually the DM should carefully determine how to apply the rules or alter them in ways that improve the game.
the paradigm you propose is not accurate, no game i have seen or played doesnt have the DM bending the rules, or deciding when to apply it, or some form of house rule/odd rule interpretation. In fact most players never even know how much stuff is altered. No one usually cares as long as the game is entertaining, or maybe they care a little but accept it in service of the overall game. The idea that dms are unable to interpret or change things is not something i commonly see in practice.
Major issues arise when the DM makes rules changes that worsen the game and generally disregard players, or just lead to a bad or hard to take seriously game
point being its a matter of execution, not absolutes. Its not, i can never change the rules or everyone gets mad, and its not i should do whatever i want as a DM and everyone should just accept it nd it will be always be good. Regardless of whether people actively oppose you, the game will suffer or end if people hate the way you DM.
Being a DM means finding the right balance for the table you are at. Which probably means you alter many things, but the players dont feel alienated, and the game feels consistent and believable instead of arbitrary.