D&D General Things That Please You

[Benjamin Olson]

Bounded Accuracy has ruined me for games that don't have some form of bounded accuracy. I used to tolerate being on a treadmill, but it just seems like crude, bad design to me now.

 

[Oofta]

Instead of talking about the rules that we have that I like, I'd like to mention the rules we don't have. I know this is something other people will be diametrically opposed, but I'm glad we don't have anything like a social reputation, prestige or influence system. I want social interactions and responses to be very free form and natural. I never want players keeping track of "points" or "scores".

 

[prabe]

Instead of talking about the rules that we have that I like, I'd like to mention the rules we don't have. I know this is something other people will be diametrically opposed, but I'm glad we don't have anything like a social reputation, prestige or influence system. I want social interactions and responses to be very free form and natural. I never want players keeping track of "points" or "scores".

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I think this is one of my objections to "faction play" as it usually happens--and how it's pretty explicitly described in the Ravnica and Theros books (where there is a number for service to a guild or rod respectively). I definitely agree on preferring such things not be a score.

 

[Oofta]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I think this is one of my objections to "faction play" as it usually happens--and how it's pretty explicitly described in the Ravnica and Theros books (where there is a number for service to a guild or rod respectively). I definitely agree on preferring such things not be a score.

I don't have either of those books, but I know in the past it really changed the dynamics; people thought of how to gain the most "points" more than what their PC would do. I don't want RP to be a mini-game.

 

[Richards]

When I was a kid first learning D&D way back when, Morgan Ironwolf pleased me. Greatly.

Johnathan

 

[Lanefan]

The open-ended design of the early editions, as opposed to capstone levels in 3e-4e-5e. Open-ended design really does give the sense that, if desired, the game can go on forever; and I like this.

Sub-system modularity in the early editions. If some sub-system or other doesn't work I can change it, add to it, or delete it and not have to worry too much about what else I'm breaking in the process.

Individual xp (as opposed to group xp, milestone levelling, etc.) where a character gets the xp it earns and doesn't get what it doesn't earn.

Variable level-advancement charts by class - a useful and super-easy-to-tweak class-balancing mechanism that for some dumb reason 3e and forward have abandoned.

In general, the flexibility of 0e-1e design in terms of the rather incredible breadth of settings and-or playstyles it can support; alons with its surprising robustness when kitbashed.

 

[turnip_farmer]

I don't have either of those books, but I know in the past it really changed the dynamics; people thought of how to gain the most "points" more than what their PC would do. I don't want RP to be a mini-game.

I think these kind of systems can be helpful. But the GM should be the one tracking the points. And they shouldn't be telling the players anything about it.

 

[jmartkdr2]

@TheSword already mentioned Concentration, so I'll mention Advantage/Disadvantage.

First, it's diabolically simple and requires no math. It's very quick to do at the table.

Second, it doesn't change the range of what you can do, just the likelihood of getting a better or worse result within it.

Third, because you can't get double advantage or disadvantage and a single one of one type will negate any number of the other type, it streamlines the whole thinking about play away from the "how can I add in as many stacking bonuses to my roll". That psychological change, while subtle, is just as big a factor as its speed and simplicity to me.

The "one source of advantage negates all disadvantage" does create some weird and stupid edge cases, so I prefer to run that as "if both apply, the dm decides how it shakes out" as the rule with "they all cancel" as the default guidance, unless that would be stupid.

(ie you can improve you're long range accuracy by standing behind an opaque barrier. This is stupid.)

 

[Stormonu]

Bounded Accuracy has ruined me for games that don't have some form of bounded accuracy. I used to tolerate being on a treadmill, but it just seems like crude, bad design to me now.

I couldn’t remember that term for the life of me, it’s been bothering me for hours.

30 years of Zelda, Diablo (and most recently Destiny) and the like have burnt me out of ”the grind” - as you get better, so do the threats you face. Let me be a hero and smash face for a little while before you make it worthless, okay? I really don’t like the advancement treadmill and magic item Christmas tree effect, so Bounded Accuracy really appeals.

 

[Oofta]

I think these kind of systems can be helpful. But the GM should be the one tracking the points. And they shouldn't be telling the players anything about it.

I do track and make notes, but it's like the pirate's code - more of a guideline really.