How Much Does "Default D&D" Matter?

[archaeo]

Basically from the beginning of the 5e design process, Mearls & Co. were keen to emphasize that they were trying to create a "flexible" edition, something that could be adjusted and tweaked easily to replicate the "feel" of previous editions or various different playstyles. Now that the core books are all published, it's pretty clear that they did their best to accomplish this goal; using the tools in the DMG, an enterprising DM can really dramatically alter the flow of the game, often just by flipping a few switches. I hope I don't need to cite sources to back up the fact that this has been a frequently praised aspect of the system.

However, again and again in discussions here and elsewhere on the Internet, I see people dismissing the optional rules when trying to criticize aspects of 5e, if not the entire enterprise. One group of people seems dedicated to discussing "RAW" at its most elemental; if it's optional, it doesn't matter, because it's not really part of the game. If an optional rule variant is presented as the solution to a problem someone has with the system, it's often shot down for just being a glorified, WotC-penned house rule. Or, and perhaps more damningly, it's presented as evidence that 5e requires too much from DMs, that it has too many clear problems that the system just expects the table to handle because it can't be bothered to. It also tends to draw ire from people frustrated that the system doesn't seem to create continuity of play across tables, since all that flexibility ends with the game being fundamentally different in every group. Finally, it presents new players and new DMs with a set of default rules that many people find inherently problematic, even those who concede that optional content largely ameliorates those problems.

So, instead of focusing on 5e as a complete system, optional rules and all, people seem really focused on "Default 5e," a set of rules somewhere between Basic 5e and the fully customized system the designers expect to be played at each individual table. We don't really all agree on what that "default" includes, exactly -- some people argue that feats, multiclassing, and magic items will be so common as to be part of the default game instead of fringe options, for example -- but we do seem consumed with examining the system from that angle.

How much does "Default 5e" matter? Is it a bad game? Is 5e enriched through all its options, or does it just create a fragmented playerbase where every table is playing a functionally different game? Is it really all that flexible, or is all of it an illusion? And if somebody has a problem with "Default 5e" that can be solved with some of the optional rules, do they still have grounds to criticize 5e because their preferred rule is an "option" instead of the "default"?

[Myzz]

good point =)

At my table (and every table that I've played at) it has always been, DM GM over rules any book rule you may have found... I say GM vice DM, since that is at the table regardless of Gaming System.

I get the feeling thats the way it is at every table, and as such your right... Core rules arent terribly important since the DM can do, run, and rule anyway he/she feels is appropriate! To me core rules would only really matter at WoTC gaming events.

[archaeo]

Core rules arent terribly important since the DM can do, run, and rule anyway he/she feels is appropriate! To me core rules would only really matter at WoTC gaming events.

The problem, as critics of the edition would have it, is that 5e's optional rules create, in the words of neonchameleon, "Schrodinger's D&D." Instead of providing players with a firm set of rules that will hold true at every table, it offers a wobbly tower of options that create work for the DM. It's flexible, but to many people, that flexibility just looks like wishy-washy indecisiveness at best, and outright poor design at worst. The system, in the eyes of these critics, fails largely because the default system is broken and incomplete by design for all but a very narrow subset of the wider D&D playerbase.

I personally find the flexibility more useful than the universality of firm rules, and I know that Mearls & Co. are trying to deliver what they think people were asking for in the playtest surveys, but all I'm saying is that there's a clear disagreement on this issue and it'd be interesting to hash it out.

[Theodoxus]

The only time I felt there was an issue of 'default vice optional' DnD is in regards to the Adventure's League - and that was more in line with Rulings, not Rules type adjudication by the seat of your pants that can turn a viable character one week, into a something that doesn't play as well.

For a regular table that has a stable of returning characters every session, it's less of a concern. At worst, you're 'flipping switches' to fine tune the game to what you want it to be, and that can sometimes be jarring (I've been playing around with options in a Danger Room type fashion, seeing what works on a micro level, one switch at a time - the players are less than amused most of the time, having to make micro alterations to their characters - but it is the first campaign, and I don't know exactly what options I like yet, outside of 'on paper.)

I think the DMG did a decent job of explaining genre and which options work well with each. But until you actually explore each one, you won't know if it works for your group. It'd be nice if there was a less biased word than 'option', as it stigmatizes the idea that they aren't core attributes, despite being in a core book (unlike say, Unearthed Arcana).

[jaydubs]

The GM may have the last say, but the default is important as a frame of reference. That frame of reference allows us to compare experiences, and as a shorthand for how things are in the absence of the GM saying otherwise. This is important both for the GM and for players. As a GM, I like being able to say - "You can assume RAW except for x, y, and x. I might have to change something else if a problem arises, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it." If RAW is horribly broken (and I'm not saying it is), I have to add x, y, z, a, b, c, d, e, f, and g. And that's a headache from both my point of view as a GM, and for my players (who might have to track different rules for different campaigns).

***I realized after writing it down, that the following applies more to inconsistent rules, than default vs houserules. Consistent and well-defined houserules do not invoke the following issues. Though again a set of well-crafted default rules makes it easier to have a consistent game, by minimizing the number of houserules I need to create.***

Also, as both a GM and a player, a GM only has a certain amount of leeway to work with before players start feeling a loss of agency. If your response to players is "because I said so" too many times, eventually it starts to cheapen the experience. Character accomplishments will eventually start to feel like they come when the GM feels like handing them out, rather than when the players are clever or the dice are generous.

It's like deus ex machina after a certain point. Readers dislike deus ex machina because it cheapens the struggles of the characters. If success and failure pivot entirely on the author writing some solution into the plot, what's the point of the last 200 pages? Similarly if success and failure are just "when the GM says so," the players lose their feeling of accomplishment for victories, while the blame for defeat falls squarely on the GM for taking it away. Not a good thing regardless of whether you're GMing or playing.

Being able to point to page X of the rulebook, rather than making something up on the spot, sidesteps the issue.

[Invader]

I'm firmly in the camp of "they didn't do nearly enough to lay down a firm set of rules". It feels like they were afraid of making hard rules that would prove incompatible with other rules or systems down the road when more content came out like with a lot of 3.X. To be fair you can only balance and test so much content before things start interacting counterintuitive to how you wanted them too.

That being said, id much prefer to have a hard set of rules that strictly govern the mechanics of the game and when those few things that don't work come up I'll house rule them the way I see fit. The way it is now you have to house rule tons of things and in my experience it leads to confusion between games and a poor point of reference for how things should work.

Example: For some reason in our current campaign melee characters can't attack squares diagonal from themselves only the squares directly front, back, and both sides unless you have a reach weapon. The reasoning is that diagonal squares are technically further away but on the same token we're only charged 5ft of movement for every diagonal square for some reason. Slightly along the same lines is reach weapons are allowed to attack adjacent squares with no penalty. None of any of these rules makes sense to me but afaik there's no clarification on how they're supposed to work. (There might be but we haven't found it). Stuff like this is why I really dislike the vague "leave it up to the dm" nonsense of 5th ed. rulesery.

[DanyBallon]

I believe that those who have a hard time with set of rules more loose are the ones who grew up during the 3.P era where everything has a rule for, and they might not yet be used to a game where the GM has much more influence over how the game plays out. Neither style is better than an other, but they are quite different and demand more adjustments from someone who played under the same set of rules for over a decade.

That been said, I myself much prefer the openness of the rules under 5e as a DM and a player alike, because if there's a good cooperation at the table you may end up doing almost everything you can think off without having to find the rules that will allow you to accomplish this. The only thing you need is a good idea, and a willing DM :)

[archaeo]

It'd be nice if there was a less biased word than 'option', as it stigmatizes the idea that they aren't core attributes, despite being in a core book (unlike say, Unearthed Arcana).

I'm not sure that word choice is the problem, honestly. If you print all your options in the core rules, write long introductions that emphasize the role of the DM in crafting the game, and market the game to experienced gamers as "flexible," it's hard to see what more you can do to change perceptions.


It feels like they were afraid of making hard rules that would prove incompatible with other rules or systems down the road when more content came out like with a lot of 3.X.

Isn't having a flexible system that has a lot of options from the beginning one of the easiest ways to ensure future compatibility? 5e, in my view, does a pretty good job of having forgiving math that can take on a lot of baggage before it collapses, and the DMG makes it clear when there are design motifs that really can't be changed without affecting the system's integrity.


That being said, id much prefer to have a hard set of rules that strictly govern the mechanics of the game and when those few things that don't work come up I'll house rule them the way I see fit. The way it is now you have to house rule tons of things and in my experience it leads to confusion between games and a poor point of reference for how things should work.

I'm reminded of debates in other spheres of consumer culture, especially computers. Some people prefer Apple, because they make computers that tend to "work" as long as you like what it does by default; right out of the box, you can turn it on, and you have PC that does amazing things. Others tend to like Linux, because it offers incredible flexibility and customizability, but it's definitely an OS that requires a lot more work to get set up.

If 4e is Mac OS, easy to use but rigid in its design, 5e is a lot more like Linux, insofar as it provides a very powerful toolset that requires more work to set up but can be used in many more settings.


Example: For some reason in our current campaign melee characters can't attack squares diagonal from themselves only the squares directly front, back, and both sides unless you have a reach weapon. The reasoning is that diagonal squares are technically further away but on the same token we're only charged 5ft of movement for every diagonal square for some reason. Slightly along the same lines is reach weapons are allowed to attack adjacent squares with no penalty. None of any of these rules makes sense to me but afaik there's no clarification on how they're supposed to work. (There might be but we haven't found it). Stuff like this is why I really dislike the vague "leave it up to the dm" nonsense of 5th ed. rulesery.

The clarification you're looking for is on page 192 of the PHB and in the section entitled "Using Miniatures" in the DMG, starting on page 250. Your DM is running the game incorrectly even by the standards of "Default 5e."

[Fwiffo86]

To me, the "default" game consists of the rules everyone has to use. That means anything defined as "optional" is not a default rule. My opinion (as stated) is one of many.

I don't think this topic can be productively begun until we come to some consensus on what "default" actually means for this discussion. I'm not saying we need to try and convince each other what the default should be, just what we will use as the default for this discussion.

That being said:

Everyone has what they like, and what they don't like about the system. Me, I like its ease of use. Its similarity to the D&D I grew up with. And the (for lack of a better term) honest D&D feel to it. I haven't had this feeling since 2e to be honest. Sure other eds are fun, but they didn't feel like D&D to me.

To me, the feeling is what is at heart of the default rules. They express to me the D&D I enjoyed in my younger days. Optional rules have been around for as long as D&D has. And in most eds, the power was in the hands of the DM, not the players. This did change in other editions, and I suppose that is why I was never completely comfortable with them. I have never needed hard coded definitions for every action/reaction/etc to be defined. The very nature of the TTRPG experience lies in doing what say a video game won't let you do.

I love my video games, but I can't go out and rob buildings in WoW now can I? My point ultimately is, the default matters. It always has. It colors everyone's view on what D&D is to them. Without the default set of rules (whichever they may be), you have no framework to play the game.

[holygroundj]

Default DnD only matters in online discussions. You can't really have a conversation with random people and start your point with, "well, at my table, we..." because whatever happens at your table is correct but pretty much only at your table. When having a discussion here, you need to base it in as much RAW/RAWOTCI, because there needs to be some sort of same page.

And when trying to nail down RAW in this edition, it can become frustrating. I mean, just look at the conversation about feats. They're optional, and therefore not default, but we talk about them all day because they add something interesting while also become frustrating with their lack of specificity.

Also, having a line that says specific beats general and then not saying which specific parts override what gets completely anger inducing... for an online discussion.

It's a 5 second adjudication for DMs, on the fly, and becomes a ruling easily. People talk about making all this extra work, but with the 5e tools available I just don't see it. Kobold fight club, random PC/NPC generators. Random tables in the back of the books... I haven't had any problems with the "extra" work.

But Default DnD matters because you can play at more than one table in this age (unlike before where you probably only played with one group of people) and since you can do that, you need to know what the default is in order to create nice character concepts and optimize them.

But it doesn't really matter.

[Theodoxus]

I haven't had any problems with the "extra" work.

I can only answer for myself, but the extra work for me is the fine tuning of the options away from the default setting. Somethings work great, others work great at first, but then have unintentional consequences when paired with something else - either another optional rule or something a player brings to the table that changes the parameters.

Since switching an ongoing campaign to 5th just before Thanksgiving, I've been working diligently to keep the feel of the original game while incorporating the ideals of 5th. I know it's an outlier, and that's fine - but it is a lot of extra work.

My next campaign, which will be pure 5th from the start, will be a lot less work - but then, I'll also have all the experience of this first campaign to help... so yeah, maybe this extra work is just growing pains, system mastery and learning curve.. in a year, we'll all laugh at how silly we were stressing over 'default vs optional'.

[holygroundj]

I can only answer for myself, but the extra work for me is the fine tuning of the options away from the default setting. Somethings work great, others work great at first, but then have unintentional consequences when paired with something else - either another optional rule or something a player brings to the table that changes the parameters.

Since switching an ongoing campaign to 5th just before Thanksgiving, I've been working diligently to keep the feel of the original game while incorporating the ideals of 5th. I know it's an outlier, and that's fine - but it is a lot of extra work.

My next campaign, which will be pure 5th from the start, will be a lot less work - but then, I'll also have all the experience of this first campaign to help... so yeah, maybe this extra work is just growing pains, system mastery and learning curve.. in a year, we'll all laugh at how silly we were stressing over 'default vs optional'.

ah, I see. So the problem is when you switch systems and want to bring something with you.

I have only been playing 5e (stopped playing RPGS about 10 years ago so practically brand new to it) so I don't have any preconcieved settings to--for lack of a better term--get in my way.

[kaoskonfety]

The core rules for 5th appear to be: the 6 stats, hit points, exhaustion, prof. bonuses, classes and races tricks, movement, saving throws, spells lists and a couple other odds and ends - A good chunk of the players handbook is optional, most of the DMG is optional.

The core rules work for conflict resolution, I've seen complaints, but they work.

This means if you know the game you can play at any table using the rules without learning a new core system.

How much you value this over a more or less unified rules set up is a personal thing.


Optional: Feats, multi-classing, magic items, several of the player races, making magic items, spell research.... the list goes on and apparently includes anti-matter (I must have skimmed that part, I've been focused on the players guide).

I assume *Most* tables/DM's include Feats, multi-classing and magic items (at SOME level or rarity), and most conversations appear to assume this.
I think this IS D&D for most players "the default" we are mostly feeling. Cool tricks you get to play with, some magic doodads and the options you need to be a bit different than the next fighter in line.

Here they are a few things we've seen that are odd. But mostly from people digging HARD for things that don't work or are not perfectly clear. No system I've seen is perfect, this one seems to be ok bordering on good.


If you are sitting down to play a game of rules and miniatures, combats and puzzles, you are sitting down to a competition that needs clear rules. Holes in the rules are a problem, everything needs to be nailed down before play starts - which options rules is the DM activating and how all the details interact. Character optimization is commonplace (as its competitive), so people playing these games are offered incentive to find the gaps in the systems armour and poke at them till they bleed. Others (myself included) try to find the holes as thought exersize.

If you are sitting down to tell stories about good and evil, great deeds and tragedy, the rules can be present, but the details rarely matter aside from ensuring everyone has the same mindset. Small holes in the rules are ignorable and dealt with case by case using the rules of cool and reason (don't say no - ask how and sometimes why). Character optimization is less commonplace (I want to say rare but most of us are at least part twink). The difference being if you find something that makes no sense - even if its good - you skim past. You are not trying to "win" the same way so there is less pressure to pry the games armour off.


D&D 1st ed was a broken mess with the DM a dread god overseeing a world descended halfway into madness, shoring up where weak (AC 10, 1hp wizards with a single spell slot, er um... you don't "die" till negative 10 hp... sure! Hey that helps everyone, cool!), beating down where strong (you cast wish? are you dumb? what *exactly* do you say?). Player held rules were a flimsy defence from a man who had tables for being struck by lightning and STD's. You would count yourself lucky if 2 different DM's allowed anything even vaguely similar at their tables.

Is this preferable to the current environment with a careful balance and a DM presented with a sizeable list of options to customize?

Or do prefer everything clearly defined and redefined so you know EXACTLY what you can do (even if what you can do is stupid or silly) and the DM is present to move the NPC's in the dungeon module and make funny voices? Don't get me wrong, I love doing silly voices and modules can be a blast, its just not where I like to focus.

How important is it? Well if I was planning to have a PC work at multiple tables I'd restrict MYSELF to what I think of as D&D: feats, mutli-classing and whatever loot the prior DM's had given me (with the understanding the gears existence my be vetoed by the next DM). I generally avoid any twinkery dependence and if I had anything that *might* be considered twinkery I'd discuss it with the DM *before* play.

[holygroundj]

While I love 5e so much, saying that DMs can't do in 4e what they do in 5e is spurious. Of course a DM can tell a story within 4e's ruleset. DM Fiat can rule the day in 3/4e just as much as it rules 5e.

[Feldarove]

I know 4th edition is the ugly redheaded step-child of D&D, but I don't think 5e captured the spirit of 4e in its rules/options.

I think if you played 4e only, and then moved to 5e, you would feel they are very different games, and if you wanted to replicate how class powers (at, daily, encounter) worked in 5e, you would be doing a lot of "house ruling" not using the options given in the core rule books.

For the first couple of games I ran with 5e, I tried to stick to the very basic RAW. Especially since we started with the starter set and the pre-made characters.

I think as discussion continues on forums about balance, and which optional rules are a good addition to the "core rules" of 5e, we have started to elect some of them into my groups.

My group has yes to stray very far from the core of the game.

I would say, generically, that the core of the game is very important. 5e feels like D&D to me (I played 2/3/3.5/4) and at the same time, feels like its own edition. Though, obviously, it feels most akin to 3.5.