Adventurer's League

Not the person you're asking, but alot of people get the impression that 5e isn't meant to be a "dangerous" game because of the changes to the death system, where you're not REALLY dead until you get hit 3 times after going down. Although, like all other rules, this is easily ignored. Even forgetting that if the whole party goes down, you're still fucked either way.

There's also the issue that RPG games and the RPG community in general, seem to see roleplaying as a more story-oriented thing thing now, as opposed to the videogamey meat-grinder set-up of early-school DnD (which was adapted from war games).

I don't think this is entirely a bad thing. It's hard to write a good story when all the main characters are getting wiped out every chapter. That being said, real danger still needs to exist, or the players need to BELIEVE that real danger still exists (it's hard to do the latter without the former), otherwise the story won't have actual tension or excitement beyond the "look how awesome we are" badass fantasy.

>Advertising
They are trying to make their games as popular as possible. Easy to use, lots of potential.
>Good time
That' you know, called having fun.
>Railroad
Entirely up to the DM.
>Afraid of challenge
Again, this is entirely in the hands of the DM and the players. The book suggestions are meant to be balanced so even unoptimized parties will stand a chance. Plenty of things in the newer editions are challenging.
>No death
Plenty of things in the newer editions can kill most players. Resurrection might be a bit easy to achieve, though.

>video gamey
kek you understand videogames are D&D-y, not the other way around, right? And 3e-5e are heavily videogame influenced, OD&D is very lightweight and roleplay heavy in comparison. And it's also story-oriented, in its own way, story is something you craft through play - not something 'written' by the DM that you play through, like a videogame.

The only reason OD&D is considered roleplay-heavy is because there's literally nothing in the rules aside from the combat. You HAVE to make everything else up. This does not mean it's a role-play heavy game. It means it's a war-game that was written for combat and nothing else.

As far as the story being something "written" by a DM. Yes and No. A DM that railroads his players through a story with only one or two paths available is shit. A DM that puts alot of thought into writing a setting that makes sense and provides the players with multiple options is infinitely better than DM that just makes everything up as he goes though. The key is that the DM is flexible enough and makes a consistent enough world that adapting to player choices is easy to do in between sessions so the amount of unplanned randomness doesn't become excessive.

>Narrativeshit
>Older D&D games outright said "If you can explain how it's done you can do it"

I think he meant the majority of XP is gained from combat and not [insert everything else]

>A DM that puts alot of thought into writing a setting that makes sense and provides the players with multiple options is infinitely better than DM that just makes everything up as he goes though.
Multiple railroads is still a railroad. A good DM is refereeing an organic setting, a virtual world the player's can interact with in any way to the limit of their PC's abilities. The DM can (and should) design interesting areas, people, conflicts but he can't decided how the players will choose to engage with it and unless the setting is stupidly simple, he'd have no idea what form the story would take.

>The only reason OD&D is considered roleplay-heavy is because there's literally nothing in the rules aside from the combat. You HAVE to make everything else up. This does not mean it's a role-play heavy game. It means it's a war-game that was written for combat and nothing else
Wew nigger what the fuck are you talking about? Combat was literally the only thing omitted from the book, it just said refer to Chainmail, and also provided some alternate rules if you didn't have it - literally half a page (out of 100) of combat rules. Can you be more wrong?

On the first point you're simply restating everything I said and trying to twist it like I was saying something else.

On the second point you're contracticding yourself. "If you can explain how it's done you can do it" does not make up 100 pages of rules. So do rules for non-combat things exist or not? What makes up those 100 pages if skills and feats and narrativeshit are "bad"?

so if a DM presented the players with a setting in a country currently embroiled in a civil war, an ancient evil awakening in the land, and a natural disaster causing an influx of refugees from a neighboring country, would you consider that railroading since you're giving them these options that are ripe for adventuring? I mean the players could just say fuck it and become rice salesmen or something, but more likely than not theyre going to latch on to one of the hooks.

Wow, you literally missed the point of what you're replying to. Then again that seems to be a trend so far in this topic.

It's railroading in the sense that the players might not want (at least at the start) to be involved in a big SAVE THE ENTIRE WORLD plotline. However that's something that should be discussed at the table before the game even begins. Rather than the DM just throwing a plot at the players out of the blee, it helps if the DM establishes a "premise" for the game first. Ask the players like
>"OK, do you wana be a band of heroes saving the world, or do you wana be a band of misfit mercenaries just trying to survive day to day in between hunting bounties, or did you guys have some completely different idea you wanted to try? Make a decision and I'll start building the campaign around that."

Unfortunately Adventure League games won't really do this, since they're all pre-published modules and by default can't really take that player-DM discussion session into account.

>So do rules for non-combat things exist or not? What makes up those 100 pages if skills and feats and narrativeshit are "bad"?
Of course they do. You understand combat was not the focus of OD&D, right? That's new school D&D.

Book 1 is abilities, alignment, language, classes, encumbrance, levels, saving throws, spells, magical research. Book 2 is Monsters & Treasure, mostly reference. Book 3 is Underworld & Wilderness. setting up dungeons, resource management, secret doors, traps, torches, wandering monster, monster morale/reaction, henchmen. hex crawl rules, setting up strongholds, men-at-arms, domain management (this late game is where the wargame roots come in)

pic related is a b/x retroclone's ToC. basically all the same stuff. How do you think D&D managed to everything it did if it didn't have rules for them?

No, that's fine, the problem is when you join the civil war and then the DM is upset you sabotaged the 'good guys' by slaying their leader in the first session and derail all his big plans. As long as he remains neutral in refereeing the system, while still continuing to contribute hooks and interesting setups, it's a healthy sandbox.

>How do you think D&D managed to everything it did
invent*

>bump

AL experiences are extremely varied. Both my best and worst experiences playing D&D were at AL. It is really all dependent on what DMs come through. The players are always a hodgepodge of weirdos though

heh the weirdos bit I can testify to

there've also been a couple cute girls though

I've been playing for multiple years now and that not only means that y'all with label me as, but I also consider myself an absolute noob to the stuff. I'm not gonna get bored of badass fantasy for years more.

>Adventurer's League

It's not *necessarily* always like that, and even in AL DMs have some room for executing it and delivering actual narrative.

But, the simple fact is most people don't make for very good GMs and of those people a lot of them find organized play attractive because it typically guarantees players.
It's the same reason you find very weird and demanding people on Roll20: that's the outlet that has a chance of accepting them.

>Damn you kids, get off my lawn and stop liking what I don't like!

>adventure league games
>loot pinatas
maybe in gold, which YOU CAN BUY BARELY ANYTHING WITH CAUSE LOL NO MORE MAGIC ITEM STORE BUT HERE HAVE SOME USELESS MONEY.

also, it ends up being one magic item per adventure, so one person gets it, and not to mention some campaigns (RAVENLOFT) fuck over martial classes hard in adventure league ravenloft campaign cause the only magic weapon is a fucking whip of warning.

>here is this campaign full of undead n shit
>"Mmm i'm gonna need a magic weapon or armor"
>NOPE HERE IS WHIP, BECOME SIMON BELMONT

more than once we've run into a situation where the item couldn't help anyone. A rod of a pact keeper shows up, no fucking warlock in the party, WELP

no, AL is shit but it's the only organized play in town, and the PHB+1 rule shit is fine for now, but as more supps come out it's going to become needless restrictions.

>criticizing a flawed game's inability to facilitate a certain style of play
>stop liking what I don't like!

>if you don't entirely buy into the progressive and hip modern style, you must just be a cranky old grandpa, probably racist too
But yea, casual entryists GTFO

What certain style of play? You didn't mention anything of that sort.
If you say the system can't handle or run a narrative-focused game because of AL, you're a goddamn retard and have no fucking clue what you're blathering about.

You need to remove those shit goggles, grandpa cos your blatant bias is shitting on everything.

>What certain style of play?
Did you even read the post I was replying to? I was replying to this question:
>how is 5E not designed to be played that way?
Which was referencing >It is entirely possible to play the newer editions of DnD in a way where the players are presented with real challenges that force the players to think creatively and where losing is a real possibility that presents real tension and excitement into the game
How is any of that unclear?

>You need to remove those shit goggles, grandpa cos your blatant bias is shitting on everything.
Quell your projection and rub those tears out of your eyes, user.

You're conflating play from AL to something people will be doing in their home games. You're going full retard.
And your shit bias doesn't mean the game is flawed.

Hahaha, cry harder emograndpa.

>You're conflating play from AL to something people will be doing in their home games
No, I'm pointing out how that user's generalization of AL is a description of new school play and how D&D 5e as a system is directly designed to be played in that style.

Why are you acting so threatened?

Except AL isn't like how home games are run at all and 5e is considered by many to be a harkening back to old school d&d.
You're being completely retarded.

Why are you upset and whinging when you were called a no-fun allowed grognard?

>implying this isn't an accurate description of new school D&D:
>implying all these mechanics aren't in 5e and don't directly impede old school play:

Do you understand what AL is? Do you understand the difference between it and home games?

Your images are lame af and just proves your opinions are worthless and retarded.

I didn't link to a description of AL, I linked to a description of new school play. It has nothing to do with AL.

Do you understand the difference between a system being designed to play one way, and a system homebrewed to change many mechanics so that it can be played another way? You know, like all the mechanics I listed that hold it back from being played that way?

Trying to justify that 5e is somehow new school d&d, whatever the fuck that even means, because of AL is pants-on headed retarded.
If you think 5e was specifically designed for AL and that it can't handle or accommodate a variety of gameplay styles, then you are a literal retard. Whatever the fuck you're on, we need some of that to even understand your blathering and imbecilic reasoning.

Stop being an autistic retard with the images.

>Trying to justify that 5e is somehow new school d&d, whatever the fuck that even means, because of AL is pants-on headed retarded
As I said, it has nothing to do with AL. I simply pointed out that his description of AL is also an accurate description of the new school style of play. Don't pretend to not know what that means when you've already pointed out 5e "harkens" back to the old school; if there's an old school there must be a new school. I agree 5e moved slightly back towards the old school compared to 3e, but as I pointed out, it is not entirely so in its design - extremely low PC fragility and limited consequences for poor play was the example and I listed some of the new school mechanics it retained that are responsible.

Why are you so upset? Does anyone know why this user is so upset?

>Do you understand the difference between a system being designed to play one way, and a system homebrewed to change many mechanics so that it can be played another way? You know, like all the mechanics I listed that hold it back from being played that way?

As you said. If you think 5e needs homebrewing to try to accommodate gameplay styles then you're talking out of your arse and shitting in the keyboard.
Trying to move goal posts is your perogative, but don't pretend to only act retarded.

>extremely low PC fragility and limited consequences for poor play was the example and I listed some of the new school mechanics it retained that are responsible.
This is true for all editions, you idiot.

>Why are you so upset? Does anyone know why this user is so upset?
You were the one who acted defensive.
Again, why must you be so upset and whinging?

>This is true for all editions, you idiot.
Lel no it's not. OD&D - 1e has extremely high PC fragility.

>If you think 5e needs homebrewing to try to accommodate gameplay styles then you're talking out of your arse and shitting in the keyboard
Do you have any idea what old school play means? You can't have buildshit and OS chargen at the same time, and without rapid chargen, you can't have high PC fragility. PC coddling was a direct result of higher chargen times. You have to homebrew 80% of 5e's chargen out just to get started on moving towards OS play, as well as obviously replacing XP for combat to XP for gold.

>the problem is when you join the civil war and then the DM is upset you sabotaged the 'good guys' by slaying their leader in the first session and derail all his big plans. As long as he remains neutral in refereeing the system, while still continuing to contribute hooks and interesting setups, it's a healthy sandbox.

TIL I'm running a sandbox when I thought I was running a railroad.

>Lel no it's not. OD&D - 1e has extremely high PC fragility.
Then you or your DM are retards.

As to your other point, that's irrelevant because you are fixated on your one prescribed way to play, when D&D and especially 5e can run a variety of gameplay types. You are saying that the game can only run causal games when it simply isn't true.

The fact that bounded accuracy exists already means that PCs are more fragile and the enemies continue to be relevant throughout.

Also 5e is highly modular meaning what you're blathering about can already be catered for in its framework.

Have you even attempted to build a PC in 5e? That shit is fast.
You gotta read the books and you gotta get with the times. Stop going full retard.