D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Rejuvenator]

The game rules stipulate that, at the end of the NPC's next turn, the Baleful Polymorph ends. The rules do not stipulate why this occurs. (Thus, the mechanic is similar to the War Devil's mechanic that The Alexandrian lambasts in his essay.)

In the fiction, why did the curse on the paladin end? The answer - because the Raven Queen turned him back. And that answer was authored by the player.

There is a more general issue for playing religious characters, if you interpret those sorts of player remarks as reflecting nothing more than the conjecture of the PC.

It is conjecture unless confirmed by a Commune spell or something of that nature. That mode of player authorship strikes me as an example where a player feels there is an "arbitrary space" (ie., the effect ends at the end of the next turn) and fills in the blank. However, as a fellow player, I would automatically interpret it as conjecture of the PC, because the fiction the player authored doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If a commune spell with the Raven Queen or other empirical evidence indicated otherwise, I would then have to deal with it as a fact of the shared narrative.

If the player is not allowed to narrate in the fiction the role of the divinity in brining about the mechanical effect, then the PC's religious conviction is in fact shown, by the mechanics, to be irrational - because no good outcome is ever, in fact, a result of divine providence but rather is the result of the impersonal mechanics (whether deterministic or random) of the cosmos.

If you think too hard about that kind of stuff, most of the PC's convictions in a D&D game may turn out to be irrational.

 

[Ratskinner]

Yes it did. That's the point of the example.

The game rules stipulate that, at the end of the NPC's next turn, the Baleful Polymorph ends. The rules do not stipulate why this occurs. (Thus, the mechanic is similar to the War Devil's mechanic that The Alexandrian lambasts in his essay.)

In the fiction, why did the curse on the paladin end? The answer - because the Raven Queen turned him back. And that answer was authored by the player.

EDITED TO ADD:

There is a more general issue for playing religious characters, if you interpret those sorts of player remarks as reflecting nothing more than the conjecture of the PC.

The actual resolution mechanics of D&D generally involve either deterministic rules - "This effect ends after 1 turn" - or dice-rolling rules - "This effect ends if the player rolls a successful save for his/her PC".

If the player is not allowed to narrate in the fiction the role of the divinity in brining about the mechanical effect, then the PC's religious conviction is in fact shown, by the mechanics, to be irrational - because no good outcome is ever, in fact, a result of divine providence but rather is the result of the impersonal mechanics (whether deterministic or random) of the cosmos.

This is suitable for playing a Conan-esque game, in which a belief in providence is either delusional or charlatanry, but is not at all suitable for a romantic or Tolkien-esque game.

I have two responses:

A) This would make them no different from faithful people IRL. (after all, they can't all be right.) That is, in a D&D style gameworld, things happen...weird things that aren't mundane like people turning into frogs. However (in games like D&D) these supernatural events and powers have durations, etc. that end up functioning like a kind of physics (even if a poor one).* Your character's assertion isn't even comparable to a Priestess of the Goddess of Momentum praising her for the bowling ball making it to the end of the lane. Why did the Baleful Polymorph end?-because effects like Baleful Polymorph do that.**

B)...except that there are (or can be) mechanics (bonuses, etc.) that do (or can) reflect a deity's intervention. So if we know that the Priests of the Goddess of Momentum are immune to immobilizing effects...then a PC can legitimately give her credit for that. The same for spellcasting abilities, etc.


*There are other games and mechanics, even some within D&D, for which this is not the case or at least not necessarily so, as the character's experiences would not correspond 1-to-1 with the operation of the mechanics.

**And I apologize for skirting the community guidelines.

EDIT:
Also, are characters in your game never wrong when they make assertions outloud? I mean, this reminds me of folks in various fandoms taking quotes from characters as gospel truth....forgetting that characters can be mistaken. So one character asserts "the Raven Queen did it" and is automatically presumed to be speaking the truth, what if another character asserts "I am invulnerable!" is he not automatically afforded the same consideration or do faithful characters receive some special benefit for declaring things in fiction?

ADDITIONAL EDIT:
D&D is, I think, solidly in the Conan camp. Its earlier incarnations are all about tomb-robbing murderhobos and nihilistic meaningless death due to a failed save, etc. Making D&D more romantic or Tolkienesque, I believe, requires heavy-handed DM intervention in the mechanical operation of the game....thus all the railroading in the old days. However, it occurs to me that this shouldn't bother players looking for that experience, because, after all, they are looking for a world where some personal divinity is actually looking out for them. In this case its just the DM.

 

[LostSoul]

I have two responses:

A) This would make them no different from faithful people IRL. (after all, they can't all be right.) That is, in a D&D style gameworld, things happen...weird things that aren't mundane like people turning into frogs. However (in games like D&D) these supernatural events and powers have durations, etc. that end up functioning like a kind of physics (even if a poor one).* Your character's assertion isn't even comparable to a Priestess of the Goddess of Momentum praising her for the bowling ball making it to the end of the lane. Why did the Baleful Polymorph end?-because effects like Baleful Polymorph do that.**

B)...except that there are (or can be) mechanics (bonuses, etc.) that do (or can) reflect a deity's intervention. So if we know that the Priests of the Goddess of Momentum are immune to immobilizing effects...then a PC can legitimately give her credit for that. The same for spellcasting abilities, etc.

A) I have no disagreement with this, but I don't see why, if everyone at the table agrees (or just the DM, depending on how you play) that it's actually the Raven Queen ending the Baleful Polymorph, why that isn't the case. Isn't that how most narration works?

What I think is interesting is how that revelation/narration effects future decisions.

B) This is interesting. In my game's setting, the power of a cleric's prayer doesn't come from a god or divinity; it comes from the will of the cleric. NPCs in the setting believe it's actually the Raven Queen (or whomever) answering the prayer, because the gods want people to believe that, but that's not the case. I don't spell this out for players, either - it's not well hidden but it could be considered a setting secret. Players could point to bonuses they get from what they believe is the deity's intervention, but they'd be wrong; those bonuses are coming from the PC's faith.

I could do the same with another version of D&D.

 

[Ratskinner]

A) I have no disagreement with this, but I don't see why, if everyone at the table agrees (or just the DM, depending on how you play) that it's actually the Raven Queen ending the Baleful Polymorph, why that isn't the case. Isn't that how most narration works?

I think it certainly is variable how tables can handle it. However, at least IME, allowing a player to assert the truth of the Raven Queen's intercession by default would be pushing it. Although, I don't think any table I've been at would balk at the Cleric making the claim as a reflection of the character's faith.

What I think is interesting is how that revelation/narration effects future decisions.

I agree, so if the DM picks it up and run's with it making it a storyline...then that's fine. However, the cleric's declaration is only relevant, interesting, or even distinguishable as true if such a diversion happens. (You run the risk of some discontinuity/nonsense when the faithless rogue is later hit by a Baleful Polymorph and experiences the same results, but...)

...I mean, hopefully the players don't go around asserting divine intervention for every single successful save and the end of every effect's duration. The game could quickly degenerate into a geometrically expanding divine obligations and tangled debts to various deities. Forcing the DM into downplaying what it actually means, and thus rendering the declaration of faith less interesting or complicating. Plus, what if there's multiple clerics of different deities?

B) This is interesting. In my game's setting, the power of a cleric's prayer doesn't come from a god or divinity; it comes from the will of the cleric. NPCs in the setting believe it's actually the Raven Queen (or whomever) answering the prayer, because the gods want people to believe that, but that's not the case. I don't spell this out for players, either - it's not well hidden but it could be considered a setting secret. Players could point to bonuses they get from what they believe is the deity's intervention, but they'd be wrong; those bonuses are coming from the PC's faith.

I could do the same with another version of D&D.

The in-fiction source of a PCs powers are, of course, all but irrelevant. I mean, we've had priests of philosophical ideals since what?...early to mid 2e? I've generally run priests' powers in the way that you describe since about that time. Otherwise, you've got to jump in as DM and pretend to be (a) god and start selectively granting miracles, taking away spellcasting, and the like.

 

[Imaro]

A) I have no disagreement with this, but I don't see why, if everyone at the table agrees (or just the DM, depending on how you play) that it's actually the Raven Queen ending the Baleful Polymorph, why that isn't the case. Isn't that how most narration works?

What I think is interesting is how that revelation/narration effects future decisions.

B) This is interesting. In my game's setting, the power of a cleric's prayer doesn't come from a god or divinity; it comes from the will of the cleric. NPCs in the setting believe it's actually the Raven Queen (or whomever) answering the prayer, because the gods want people to believe that, but that's not the case. I don't spell this out for players, either - it's not well hidden but it could be considered a setting secret. Players could point to bonuses they get from what they believe is the deity's intervention, but they'd be wrong; those bonuses are coming from the PC's faith.

I could do the same with another version of D&D.

So then what happens if a cleric in your game casts a spell like commune... or, if you are playing 5e, use the Divine Intervention power... Which is also another (again at least in 5e) problematic area with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s example of just declaring your deity intervened and it's true... then what's the purpose of that ability??

 

[Imaro]

Double Post

 

[Rejuvenator]

A) I have no disagreement with this, but I don't see why, if everyone at the table agrees (or just the DM, depending on how you play) that it's actually the Raven Queen ending the Baleful Polymorph, why that isn't the case. Isn't that how most narration works?

What I think is interesting is how that revelation/narration effects future decisions.

That's why I as a player in that group would feel uncomfortable with the fiction of the Raven Queen ending the spell. Because I know that spells are formulas for discrete expressions of magic, with duration being a component of that discrete predictable effect. My imagination would naturally and automatically consider the ramifications of the player's authorship. That bit of Raven Queen fiction starts a major domino effect that intrudes on my immersion. If the other players and DM aren't equally willing to factor that domino effect into the worldbuilding, then I'm left holding the shattered pieces of my presumptions and trying to patch it back together [play the air violin here].

I agree, so if the DM picks it up and run's with it making it a storyline...then that's fine. However, the cleric's declaration is only relevant, interesting, or even distinguishable as true if such a diversion happens. (You run the risk of some discontinuity/nonsense when the faithless rogue is later hit by a Baleful Polymorph and experiences the same results, but...)

...I mean, hopefully the players don't go around asserting divine intervention for every single successful save and the end of every effect's duration. The game could quickly degenerate into a geometrically expanding divine obligations and tangled debts to various deities. Forcing the DM into downplaying what it actually means, and thus rendering the declaration of faith less interesting or complicating. Plus, what if there's multiple clerics of different deities?

All of the above would worry me as well.

 

[LostSoul]

I think it certainly is variable how tables can handle it. However, at least IME, allowing a player to assert the truth of the Raven Queen's intercession by default would be pushing it. Although, I don't think any table I've been at would balk at the Cleric making the claim as a reflection of the character's faith.

That's my experience as well, though [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] probably handles things differently.

I agree, so if the DM picks it up and run's with it making it a storyline...then that's fine. However, the cleric's declaration is only relevant, interesting, or even distinguishable as true if such a diversion happens. (You run the risk of some discontinuity/nonsense when the faithless rogue is later hit by a Baleful Polymorph and experiences the same results, but...)

...I mean, hopefully the players don't go around asserting divine intervention for every single successful save and the end of every effect's duration. The game could quickly degenerate into a geometrically expanding divine obligations and tangled debts to various deities. Forcing the DM into downplaying what it actually means, and thus rendering the declaration of faith less interesting or complicating. Plus, what if there's multiple clerics of different deities?

I agree. What happens when the PC fails the save? That could get interesting if handled properly.

I think the Rogue's player - in 4E at least - would be more likely to author something about how quick he is, or a slippery mind, or whatever, basically keying the content off of the class's power source. Maybe if he was planning to multi-class into Cleric or somehow take Religion as a skill that would be a nice way to introduce/foreshadow the change to the character.

As for declaring divine intervention all the time - I think this is one of those things where you put expectations on players to be interesting. I knew a guy who always played red-headed "bimbos" as his PC; it got old fast and I stopped playing with him. I think that, when you give players the chance to author content as part of the game, the rest of the group is going to judge the other players on the content they add. Not that this is big news or anything; players do this about DMs all the time, just pointing it out.

The in-fiction source of a PCs powers are, of course, all but irrelevant. I mean, we've had priests of philosophical ideals since what?...early to mid 2e? I've generally run priests' powers in the way that you describe since about that time. Otherwise, you've got to jump in as DM and pretend to be (a) god and start selectively granting miracles, taking away spellcasting, and the like.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. I took what you wrote to mean that the PC could only claim divine intervention if the PC had a bonus from a spell like Aid or Bless (or some other mechanic that explicitly spelled it out).

So then what happens if a cleric in your game casts a spell like commune... or, if you are playing 5e, use the Divine Intervention power... Which is also another (again at least in 5e) problematic area with pemerton's example of just declaring your deity intervened and it's true... then what's the purpose of that ability??

The cleric (or whoever casts Commune) actually talks to the god. Looking at the 5e Divine Intervention power, the god would help out in whatever way they could (given that they're limited in power), in a manner that aligned with their worldview. Or I could decide that Divine Intervention is just the cleric fooling him or herself into thinking the god or goddess is granting the cleric's aid, but it's really coming from the cleric's faith. (Probably the former because that seems more interesting.)

 

[Aenghus]

I have two responses:

ADDITIONAL EDIT:
D&D is, I think, solidly in the Conan camp. Its earlier incarnations are all about tomb-robbing murderhobos and nihilistic meaningless death due to a failed save, etc. Making D&D more romantic or Tolkienesque, I believe, requires heavy-handed DM intervention in the mechanical operation of the game....thus all the railroading in the old days. However, it occurs to me that this shouldn't bother players looking for that experience, because, after all, they are looking for a world where some personal divinity is actually looking out for them. In this case its just the DM.

I think this is over-simplistic. There's a lot of D&D products and you can find material supporting any view you want in there somewhere. Clerics and other religious spellcasters having spells provides tangible evidence that faith can matter, depending on the surrounding nuance.

Products like "Faiths and Avatars" for 2e provide an alternative view, with signs and portents all around, which makes for a more supernatural world, but some people like that. Fitting this stuff in doesn't need to trample all over the rules or others people's tastes, it can be negotiated to fit in the gaps in the rules and to be acceptable to other players. Like any improvisation, much of it is about going with the flow and avoid contradicting the other participants.

My own game has somewhat interventionist deities, though transcendent in capabilties and outlook and with external limits.

I have seen irreconcilable differences arise on these issues as well, it can be something of a hot topic, so I'm trying to be careful.

 

[BryonD]

I am not rejecting immersion - just the opposite. I am saying that what you call immersion is a good thing. Flow is a good thing. It just has a mainstream name and using the term "character immersion" for flow is needlessly confusing. What I am rejecting is the idea that your form of immersion is special to roleplaying. I've felt it roleplaying - and also playing competitive chess. What I haven't felt playing chess or wargaming is bleed or the form of immersion that leads to bleed.

I'm sorry, but you are not really addressing anything I'm saying here.

What I reject isn't your experience, it's where you seek to post hard limits on your experience. When you say you have experience of something you are telling the truth. When you say that something can only work a certain way then one single counter-example (which my experience provides) is sufficient to show you are wrong. You personally can not find flow in an RPG when you have player-authorship powers and responsibilities. This I accept. That because BryonD can not personally find flow when he has player authorship powers means that no human being that is, was, or ever will be is able to do so is something I dismiss as ridiculous. Especially because I personally can. It's not the authorship powers that are the problem. It's that they conflict with the way you (and many others) have obtained mastery. And there's nothing wrong with that until you start saying that there aren't other ways outside the one you've identified.

First, again, I don't accept you putting terms on my experience.

That aside, if you say you experience immersion in poker while playing checkers, or you say you hate checkers but feel immersion in checkers while not doing it, so be it. I think these positions are quite odd, but that make no difference to me or the actual point I'm making. There is an aspect of what makes RPGs fun to me ( and a lot of other people) that you are clearly failing to grasp and you keep substituting other things into the conversation that defeat making any progress.

And if computer games weren't fun when you weren't experiencing flow almost no one would ever play them. Flow takes mastery. This I find an utterly un-compelling argument.

So you take issue when you claim that I have falsely described your experience. Then you describe MY experience and when I say "no, that is not right" you tell me that this is an un-compelling argument.

OK.

Like I've said several times now. You can't get anywhere with closed minded presumptions.

This is a thread in the 5E board. It has certainly derailed several times over. But there is a constant theme and that is (roughly and in simple terms) "how things in 5E (and other editions) are perceived and enjoyed by people who dislike the 4E analogs of those things". There is a long stream of replies from the pro-4E side that repeatedly insert the 4E versions as not analogs, but as the exact same thing in all manners of perception and experience. And if that were true it would be non-sense for anyone to take exception to them in 4E and yet enjoy them in other editions. And the 4E fans seem to take this point and run with it, proclaiming other opinions to be nonsense by this reasoning. And yet the very fact that it happens is proof (at least to any reasonable view of popular opinion and market acceptance) that the logic fails because the founding presumption of equivalence is in error. If you want to talk about 4E things purely from a 4E perspective then it seems to me that you should go to a 4E forum. You are welcome to bring your 4E perspective to the 5E forums, but you need to accept that differences in perspective will be quite important to advancing the conversation.

Lastly: though I still reject your use of the term "flow", I strongly reject your statement regarding what I "cannot find". The point of the conversation is about what provides the greatest fun and maximum satisfaction from the gaming experience.