In which we are no longer playing D&D

 I MAY have discussed this a year or so ago.  When does D&D stop being D&D?  The example used in this video is that of the conundrum of the Ship of Theseus.  I discussed this with some local DM's a while back and the general theory was "if you can still use your 5e character sheet you're still playing D&D."  And Mike Shea aka Sly Flourish also addressed this earlier this month.  Shea argues that the 5.1 System Reference Document changed what 5e "is."  He argues "the term "5e" no longer means "the 5th edition of D&D" but now acts as a stand-alone term defining compatibility between thousands of 5e RPG products."  Edit to add: Just found THIS too, the major takeaway of which seems to be that everything is now about combat.  Encumbrance, water, rations, and ammunition are afterthoughts.  Bags of Holding and Leomund's Hut are mainstays.  And the DM is no longer a rules arbiter.  They're a  story teller. 

Further, an "online friend DM" recently had his long time game fall apart due to, among other things, a 5e dispute.  He's NOT running 5e.  He's NEVER run 5e.  Everybody at his table KNOWS he's not running 5e.  If anything he's running AD&D with some sweet, sweet homebrew set in an early 17th Century planet earth.  But he had a 5e player tell HIM how a spell worked.  He's modified a lot of spells (or is still using the AD&D version) and the players KNOW how they work.  But 5e with its "rule of cool." "yes, and" philosophy and storytelling not game playing ideology doesn't fit with that.  So there was an eruption and what had been built over almost a decade was gone in an instant.  

Because he wasn't playing 5e (?)  He wasn't even sailing a ship of Theseus.  Which doesn't matter.  But it does.  HAD he been playing 5e RAW this problem STILL would have arisen because the player STILL thought she could tell the DM how the spell worked.

I'm wandering a bit but IMHO it all ties together.  

I have three VERY different players at my table and the challenge is to offer the game I wanna offer, AND the one EACH of them wants to play.  D played AD&D but kinda missed the intervening versions.  Her PC's are detailed, innovative and push the systems in place.  J played some of those other editions and still bears some of the scars.  For him it's a board game with more options.  The difference between characters is the difference between the battleship and the race car.  He wants puzzles and mysteries to be resolved asap and if they aren't he loses interest.  And then there's C.  Never played before so no preconceptions.  Very analytical.  Every combat encounter is a problem to be solved.  Every social encounter is an opportunity to be milked for information.  Every hex/point crawl is an opportunity to peek behind the curtain.  

Me?  I'm a systems guy.  I HATE running published setting because IMHO I just CAN'T know enough about them to do them right.  And there's so many things that 5e either does poorly or doesn't do at all that my approach has been "Spanning the globe to bring you the constant variety of D&D... the thrill of victory... and the agony of defeat... the human drama of TTRPG.  I've messed with spell components, insanity, initiative, the action economy, and encumbrance.  And that's just the player facing stuff!  

But is it D&D?  There was recently a discussion about me running a game the the MS where I teach.  The plan fell through but it's what got me thinking.  IF one of my young players had played 5e they were gonna be flummoxed by a lot of my homebrew.  IF one of my young players went to another game they were gonna be flummoxed!  But would the character sheet still be "transferable?"  Probably.  But just because the sheet can be dropped into a game doesn't mean it's the same game.  Which is why I prefer players who play their character, NOT the sheet.  D above is such a player.  J plays the sheet.  And C is a combination of the two.  

So I'm playing Velveeta.  A processed cheese food product.  It's a lot like cheddar.  Or American flat cheese.  But it's better.  Because it makes what we're cooking better.  So when we add more players we'll be open with them and tell them we're playing a 5e D&D-like product.

In which we consider what, if anything, is character creation

 

What are we playing? Is the idea to be given a set of stats and traits and play them in a game setting to the best of your ability? Or are you creating a game-piece customized within a set of rules in order to play in a game setting to the best of your ability?

In Monopoly you may chose to be the dog, the battleship, the iron or the race car (although why anyone would NOT chose to be the race car is beyond me) and the only differentiation is the shape. But imagine they had different traits. The car gets to move one extra property per turn. The boat may move an extra property IF the dice indicates it lands on a property NOT named after a body of water. The dog prevents any other player from landing on either side of it. And so on. Are we still playing Monopoly? Probably not but there are a TON of house rules to the game so work with me here.

In version one you still get to pick which token you use, and you select the one that fits your game style the most (?.) In version two there's a blind draw to see which token each player gets. In version three you may select the token you get BUT the “trait” is then modified by the roll of a d6. Are these three games THAT different? Which would you prefer?

It seems that being handed character sheets that only differ in the picture of the character is the base game. Everybody is the same class/race with the same Big Six. Might be interesting but not gonna fly long-term. Each of the proposed versions above seems to be (loosely) correlated to various character creation methods.

Over time the methods for creating a character have stayed more or less the same, but the ORDER of creation (and locus of control) has changed. DM's initially controlled generating the Big Six with the player making subsequent decisions. 3D6 in order WAS a thing! Minimum requirements had to be met. Wanna play a Paladin? Probably not gonna happen. You're out of luck. Here's your Big Six in order. NOW pick a race (and get some modifiers) then a class (more modifiers) and you're done. Didn't qualify for the race/class you wanted? Suicide by monster and start over. NOT good game play. Good game play would be taking taking the character you got and adventuring to the best of your ability.

At one point different dice were rolled for different skills based on character/class. And it's looking like ONE is turning classes and races into a gray mass of differences without distinctions. Dogs and irons and race cars. Ah … but then you choose your BACKGROUND! And stuff gets “different.” Like in the second 'graph above. Perhaps version three in 'graph three.

LONG post to get to a different question: is your “goal” playing D&D to explore the world and see what happens? OR is it to create the coolest half-gnome half-orc multi-class artificer monk and see how they interact with the world? And this is where I get kinda harsh perhaps. If you're looking to play the second type of character then a series of disconnected one-shots will meet your needs. But if you're looking fro the first you need a more complex interconnected world. The second type of player will love the ONE method of character creation. Type one would be happy (and challenged) with a strict 3d6 in order, give me a race, a class, and a name and I'll give you the rest kinda game.

Perhaps another way of asking is: Do you consider D&D to be a game about PLAYER skill or CHARACTER skill? 

note: after I wrote this I had a LONG tm exchange with two other DM's about this topic.  Disagreement brought me no closer to a viable understanding. 

Edit to add:  Alexis over at the Tao of D&D has a running series on this topic that started my trip down this rabbit hole

In which we begin to encounter THE ONE

If you're reading this you're probably aware that WotC and all the other corporate kraken that IS D&D these days is coming out with something new.  Not 6e.  Not 5.5.  ONE.  There's some play testing out there.  We know a little about what's coming.  Some of it's good.  Some of it isn't.

Here's my take.  D&D is now poker.  There's a world of difference between five-card draw and Spit in the ocean.  Play of Texas Hold Em is different than Big O high/low split.  But it's all poker.  And then layer in House Rules and it becomes unplayable.  Except it doesn't.  You learn the basics.   You ask the game.  You touch on house rules and you play.  Every table is different but but every table has the same elements.  

So I'm thinking when ONE (I forget: is this Coke or Pepsi?) hits tables will adopt some and reject some and we'll move on.  This is my initial impression of what we know. 

1.  Critical hits.  No crits for monsters.  No crits for magic.  Change of the damage calculation.  Pretty much what we've BEEN playing so not really a change for us.  Just kinda incorporates our house rule into canon.  There's a bit more there but that's the meat of it.

2.  Rolling a 20.  20 always succeeds.  1 always fails.  Not a fan.  By this rule a 90-year-old commoner has  5% chance to throw an aircraft carrier to the moon.  Additionally the ONE calls for a character gaining inspiration if they roll a 20.  No.  Just no.  IF we incorporate it it will be for rolling a 1.  "You failed miserable but realized you could succeed by ..."   

3.  Ability score bonuses.  Since first edition AD&D, each race has gained ability score modifiers that match the fantasy archetypes of robust dwarves, agile elves, and so on. This started back when everyone rolled characters at random and when good play meant making the most of whatever the dice gave you.  I HATE this equity crap.  I'll probably skip this modification completely and stick with old school/home brew character generation so the stereotypes will endure.  

4.  Feats.  I've been trending away from feat for some time.  MUCH better to get a 5-10% bonus in a skill.  But players don't see it that way.  They wanna be able to do cool stuff.  And eventually they will.  But at the start you get six ability scores, a race and a class.  GO!  But now we take AWAY the distinguishing features of race and instead add options via background" and feats.  Don't like it.  I'll probably continue to improve and implement Alexis' sage knowledge system.  The one GOOD thing it appears the ONE does is to break feats down by level.  Kinda like Alexis has been doing for years.

5.  Grapple.  Doesn't happen often enough to matter.

6.  Spells.  Three types.  Arcane, Divine, and Primal.  COULD really clean up quite a few things.  I like the IDEA.  We'll see how the implementation goes.

So there you have it.  I'm thinking my table will stick with what we like from 5e, incorporate the "good" from ONE and continue to implement our house rules as needed.