I've only skimmed some of the changes in 5e and they are not for me. With that said, I have never and will never tell someone what they should or should not play... except of course Dystopian Dawn... everyone should play it. Shamelss plug.
I stopped playing D&D quite a while ago. I loved D&D, AD&D, and even 2ed AD&D. I felt that those three, at their core, perfected the system that started me on this journey way back in 1981.
I still love the old sourcebooks but in the 90s I was introduced to GURPS 3e (not a big fan of 4e, but thats just me) - the idea of ONE mechanic for ANY genre really appealed to me.
Back then I used to collect systems just for the different genres, but that got real cumbersome real quick. I had so many game system books it was not even funny. So being able to drop any game idea that I'd previously ran with whatever system into ONE system was a huge win... and I love to cross genres. Yes, I've ran Black Ops-Time Travel-Alternate Earths - Reign of Steel - Supers - Steampunk - Fantasy campaigns. You read that right.
Back to D&D. With 3e it felt too anime for my tastes in a fantasy setting. It just didn't "feel" like D&D to me. 4e was a mess - it was like someone tried to make GURPS 2e without a plan. 5e, I admit, while the mechanics and feel of the game do not appeal to me, it is more the screaming hate mongers under the guise of false inclusivity that really turned me away.
You are right. The community soured it completely for me.
The trend of safety checklists just boggles my mind. I mean, it is just a game. I agree that if you're running dark themes that you should let potential players know so that they can choose to play or not. But after seeing these checklists at the last two conventions where I ran Dystopian Dawn, I see no value in them... at all. I handed them to the players as I was instructed and every player at every table (I ran MANY games) all laughed at them. I did state up front what my game was and if anyone had any issues with anything - me, other players, theme, etc. to just let me know. Every player was cool with this.
Both checklists were different and completely subjective. One listed "spiders" and "being in the dark" while another listed "sex".and "BDSM"... on the latter, I am not the type of GM who runs porn settings - if a PC chases an amorous encounter - ok, I'll run with it but I do not get descriptive with those scenes. I leave that up to the player's imagination and I steer the game back to the story and plots.
Now on the "spiders & darkness" - hell I have no idea what my Random Encounter tables might generate and gee... most caverns & dungeons are not well-lit. These made zero sense to me. A GM spends a lot of time writing an adventure and to have to analyze it after creation to compensate for any possible phobia is insulting to the creativity of the GM and just a grind.
I run my games at conventions at a PG-13 level. There will probably be dark places and combat somewhere in that adventure mixed in with LOTS of ROLE playing in character. I focus my games on the story and I pay attention to my players. If it seems that someone is getting upset, I stop and find out why. This comes with experience and empathy... not an arbitrary checklist.
I generally steer away from overly creepy themes unless my "normal" group wants me to run that type of game - like a Villains campaign - which went off the rails deep into the dark side quickly... by the players! I mean, if I'm running a Horror game, I'm going to create themes to scare, but everyone gaming knows ahead of time "hey, its a Horror game"... soooo.
I digress.
I've been at this for decades and still see no point in a checklist. I am not against the GM having a short descriptor available of what they plan to run and letting the players choose whether or not that is in their comfort zone. Each person is different and a checklist will NEVER encompass everything that someone might not like... if it did, there would never be a game.
Here is my point. Play what you like and like what you play.
I don't hate 5e D&D, I mostly love it, hell I have a lot of the books myself. I dunno, after the OGL debacle by WotC early this year, I have found myself wanting to move away from D&D as a whole and had only just started collecting Castles & Crusades, which I also love.
I cannot, in good conscience do anything with 5e anymore, even with my favorite supplement. Its like the magic was lost, is the best way I can describe it.
I never understood the need for safety tools or rules describing how the games SHOULD be run, I bought a copy of the books, I will run the games as I damn well please and no corpo or influencer will tell me otherwise.
Whenever I ran games (ran being the operative word here) I laid out the content of the campaign before we even started session 0 or rolling up characters. It mostly went well and rarely was there any objections with the content nor how I ran them.
Nowadays, with the rise of shows like Critical Role bringing D&D to the mainstream, the hobby just became filled with the worst sort of people and this is coming from someone who hasn't been in the hobby long himself. I've never felt so unwelcome in a space until the rise of these toxic and exceptional individuals.
I've always played under this caveat. "If there is no risk, there is no reward. The greater the risk, the greater the reward." That's why squishy characters stay in the back of the party and throw spells, shoot bows, heal, etc, and Tanks stay in front to defend the squishies.
By the way, I always play squishy characters because they are more fun. What's the fun in being invulnerable to every attack and killing every foe?
If anyone has read my just-released novel, they will notice that the two main characters are very old and powerful, and they choose not to attack if they don't have to. They choose to protect their companions.
I've only skimmed some of the changes in 5e and they are not for me. With that said, I have never and will never tell someone what they should or should not play... except of course Dystopian Dawn... everyone should play it. Shamelss plug.
I stopped playing D&D quite a while ago. I loved D&D, AD&D, and even 2ed AD&D. I felt that those three, at their core, perfected the system that started me on this journey way back in 1981.
I still love the old sourcebooks but in the 90s I was introduced to GURPS 3e (not a big fan of 4e, but thats just me) - the idea of ONE mechanic for ANY genre really appealed to me.
Back then I used to collect systems just for the different genres, but that got real cumbersome real quick. I had so many game system books it was not even funny. So being able to drop any game idea that I'd previously ran with whatever system into ONE system was a huge win... and I love to cross genres. Yes, I've ran Black Ops-Time Travel-Alternate Earths - Reign of Steel - Supers - Steampunk - Fantasy campaigns. You read that right.
Back to D&D. With 3e it felt too anime for my tastes in a fantasy setting. It just didn't "feel" like D&D to me. 4e was a mess - it was like someone tried to make GURPS 2e without a plan. 5e, I admit, while the mechanics and feel of the game do not appeal to me, it is more the screaming hate mongers under the guise of false inclusivity that really turned me away.
You are right. The community soured it completely for me.
The trend of safety checklists just boggles my mind. I mean, it is just a game. I agree that if you're running dark themes that you should let potential players know so that they can choose to play or not. But after seeing these checklists at the last two conventions where I ran Dystopian Dawn, I see no value in them... at all. I handed them to the players as I was instructed and every player at every table (I ran MANY games) all laughed at them. I did state up front what my game was and if anyone had any issues with anything - me, other players, theme, etc. to just let me know. Every player was cool with this.
Both checklists were different and completely subjective. One listed "spiders" and "being in the dark" while another listed "sex".and "BDSM"... on the latter, I am not the type of GM who runs porn settings - if a PC chases an amorous encounter - ok, I'll run with it but I do not get descriptive with those scenes. I leave that up to the player's imagination and I steer the game back to the story and plots.
Now on the "spiders & darkness" - hell I have no idea what my Random Encounter tables might generate and gee... most caverns & dungeons are not well-lit. These made zero sense to me. A GM spends a lot of time writing an adventure and to have to analyze it after creation to compensate for any possible phobia is insulting to the creativity of the GM and just a grind.
I run my games at conventions at a PG-13 level. There will probably be dark places and combat somewhere in that adventure mixed in with LOTS of ROLE playing in character. I focus my games on the story and I pay attention to my players. If it seems that someone is getting upset, I stop and find out why. This comes with experience and empathy... not an arbitrary checklist.
I generally steer away from overly creepy themes unless my "normal" group wants me to run that type of game - like a Villains campaign - which went off the rails deep into the dark side quickly... by the players! I mean, if I'm running a Horror game, I'm going to create themes to scare, but everyone gaming knows ahead of time "hey, its a Horror game"... soooo.
I digress.
I've been at this for decades and still see no point in a checklist. I am not against the GM having a short descriptor available of what they plan to run and letting the players choose whether or not that is in their comfort zone. Each person is different and a checklist will NEVER encompass everything that someone might not like... if it did, there would never be a game.
Here is my point. Play what you like and like what you play.
I don't hate 5e D&D, I mostly love it, hell I have a lot of the books myself. I dunno, after the OGL debacle by WotC early this year, I have found myself wanting to move away from D&D as a whole and had only just started collecting Castles & Crusades, which I also love.
I cannot, in good conscience do anything with 5e anymore, even with my favorite supplement. Its like the magic was lost, is the best way I can describe it.
I never understood the need for safety tools or rules describing how the games SHOULD be run, I bought a copy of the books, I will run the games as I damn well please and no corpo or influencer will tell me otherwise.
Whenever I ran games (ran being the operative word here) I laid out the content of the campaign before we even started session 0 or rolling up characters. It mostly went well and rarely was there any objections with the content nor how I ran them.
Nowadays, with the rise of shows like Critical Role bringing D&D to the mainstream, the hobby just became filled with the worst sort of people and this is coming from someone who hasn't been in the hobby long himself. I've never felt so unwelcome in a space until the rise of these toxic and exceptional individuals.
Can't kill a PC? What are they, Gods?
I've always played under this caveat. "If there is no risk, there is no reward. The greater the risk, the greater the reward." That's why squishy characters stay in the back of the party and throw spells, shoot bows, heal, etc, and Tanks stay in front to defend the squishies.
By the way, I always play squishy characters because they are more fun. What's the fun in being invulnerable to every attack and killing every foe?
If anyone has read my just-released novel, they will notice that the two main characters are very old and powerful, and they choose not to attack if they don't have to. They choose to protect their companions.