Ferno the more advanced Pyromancer after he's wiped the floor with a whole field of orc barbarians.
"Well, looks like all that patience and hard work really paid off".
D&D 5E What's the rush? Has the "here and now" been replaced by the "next level" attitude?
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
Ferno the more advanced Pyromancer after he's wiped the floor with a whole field of orc barbarians.
"Well, looks like all that patience and hard work really paid off".
Celebrim
Legend
It is also not what I said. There are tons of ways to disagree with me, many of which weren't covered by my observation - which incidently really wasn't about disagreement. Since you choose to be nettled, I might as well say that your position as far as I'm concerned has already logically unravelled, become self-contridictory and turned on itself. There is no more merit in us arguing. There is no basis for agreement possible. I'm only responding because I hate being misquoted.
I said that I doubt the motivations of someone who would claim that they wanted to play a concept, when what hindered them wasn't the freedom to implement that concept, but the fact that the concept was not optimal. I'm not fully sure I doubt there ability to play the character, since some of the best RPers I've ever met were also power gamers, but then again - I've never had a power gamer want to play an unoptimized concept. Their imaginations tend to begin with what they can do mechanically, and then they (or the best of them) rationalize within the narrative (because they know being a great character is a power unto itself).
Look, we both know that we look at the game completely and utterly in contridiction to each other and we agree about just about nothing. You start talking about a character concept being "a leader of men", and immediately you assert that either you must have the leadership feat or else you must have house rules. My mind boggles. Neither leads to being the character who is a "leader of men". If you want to be a "leader of men" as your character concept, nothing less or more is necessary than role-playing a character who is a leader of men... and if the setting is in any way fair and impartially run at all, people will flock to your banner to serve you. No house rules will be necessary. You want to lead people, mechanically at most you just need a high charisma and (maybe) drop some points in social skills and then play the part of someone people would want to follow.
One of the most epic and famous leaders in my homebrew setting was an arthritic beggar. If I had to implement her mechanically, Leadership feats and the like would pay no role in it. She'd likely have been a low level commoner. Do you think every king, lord, or leader in the world requires a series of feats to pay for every character that holds them as their leige? The Hurin of Talernga is an 8th level character that commands 50 or more cohorts and 10,000 followers merely because he was born Higher King over Talernga. He doesn't have enough feat slots to represent that mechanically. Why should PC's be any different and obey different rules, and be handicapped from recieving what ought to be due them on the basis of story? I don't have Leadership or anything like it in my setting, in part because I wouldn't want anyone to feel cheated for spending mechanical resources on something someone could better achieve without them. And in part because it is unfair to the player; it forces him to pay for and play by rules the NPCs don't. It's something I learned from GURPS. Transient aspects of the narrative shouldn't be, and perhaps even can't be, accounted for mechanically. It's one thing to say, "I want to start with/without a resource other characters don't." But you can't perpetually maintain the gamist fictions without harming your narrative ones, so you'd be better off not having them.
We just don't agree on anything. We just have to leave it that.
That's not house rules!! No rules of any sort are required. All the PC has to do is say, "I want to seek out a squire and convince him to swear fealty to me.", and then we have an story where he tries to find a likely/worthy squire and convince him to swear fealty to him. Done. No rules are violated. That's called an adventure. It's more a violation of the rules to acquire squires than it is a violation of the rules to acquire gold or magic items. Not having a Leadership feat is a house rule. The fact that you can have meaningful relationships with NPCs isn't a house rule.
I never said it was badwrongfun or poor play to level however you like. I have freely admitted that you can start at 10th or 20th level if you like, level as fast as you like, or play as gritty or as Monte Haul as you like. What I have said is that there is a high cost to playing at high level or to leveling up fast, and it is a cost that often as not need not be paid in order to obtain the same thing. If it really is "a wash", then it isn't a wash. The only reason to pay the cost of D&D's extreme fiddliness, slow play, and imbalances at high level is if you are buying something you cant' have at low level. Now, I do play at high(ish) level, so obviously I do obviously feel something can be purchased there but we don't agree as to what it is.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I'm not sure I'd characterize a game starting at any level other than 1st as really being a "houserule" game. That's more of a campaign parameter like "no elves", "no plate armors", or "no wizards". The rules aren't changed, per se, rather you're using a subset of the game.
Incenjucar
Legend
I was using it as a conceptual example, not an actual one, using a class where people don't consider a lack of options to be the norm because of course fighters should get screwed in options.
Thanks for enforcing my point! <3Concepts are not about optimization. People do like their concepts to also be as good as the next guy's generic, but it's not the reason you play something. It does become frustrating when your quest for flavor is punished or essentially forbidden by the mechanics barring the introduction of house rules.
the problem with this train of thought is that i've seen great characters be per-emptively retired entirely because they were unable to pull their weight. the character still had the potential for moving the story along, but anytime something came up that could challenge the other characters, his best option was often to use aide another rather then actually attempt anything by himself. the player got frustrated and eventually retired the PC.
it happens. optimization is there to make sure that your character doesn't stop being relevant when the numbers start mattering... and in most games, the numbers will matter at some point and in D&D that very often occurs in times where you character can die in a very messy fashion.
and if i have several concepts i'm stewing on, i'll very much pick the one that has the best chance of surviving those situations.
i think the main point of contention between you two is that some people like having more in-game mechanics that enforce their concepts rather then play a game of "GM may i?". neither is wrong, and i can see the benefit of playing a game that's lighter on the rule aspect and going a bit more off the cuff / fast and loose with some interpretations but i will say that i do feel that there is a something special when you can invoke a character ability or trait and have a mechanic or two that represents it.
to use an example, it's like how the 4th ed warlord can use a power to immediately get his allies to reposition themselves. for some people, that's immersion breaking or seen as supernatural/unnatural. for others, it enforces the idea that the character is able to quickly analyze the battlefield and get his allies in the best positions... a warlord, or at least someone with experience leading others in combat.
to each his own.
part of the issue is that i want options at level 1 rather then a level 7, but still be fighting orcs and goblins and stuff.
basically, a level 1 pyromancer, i my mind would have an array of different fire based spells. think of it like having a burning hands, shocking grasp, magic missile, shield, etc... but all fire themed. so think burning hands, immolating touch, firebolt, flame barrier (+4 AC and maybe 5 fire resist instead of stopping magic missile?). maybe a spell that allows one to shape/control small fires or a cantrip that, like prestidigitation, can warm food or items to a comfortable level or create a small fire, akin to a candlelight.
basically as a "pyromancer" at first level i'd like to have various ways i can use fire, magical or otherwise, to do stuff. i want options but still at the lower scope of the early game.
now, one of the big problems with the Pyromancer concept is that fire resistance or immunity is VERY common in Dungeons&Dragonia, so picking a spell list of only fire spells (or a feat that lets me change the damage type to fire) is enforcing my concept, but hurting my character's viability for the most part. because as long as the numbers don't matter, i'm doing fire stuff and it's neat, but as soon as the numbers DO matter, well... i'm not so hot (YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAH /CSI-Miami).
unless i start optimizing, which can take several levels before i can overcome the resistance/immunity barrier an elemental specialist in D&D is likely to face and become a "real" pyromancer. but at that point i've spent a lot of effort (levels, feats, skills points maybe) just to reach the same parity a default wizard would have without any of those expenditures.... i'm going to start wondering if playing certain concepts is even worth my effort.
two people may very well end up taking different routes to get to the same theoretical goal, but that's because no given route will be appealing to everyone and not everyone approaches the goal from the same angle. to each their own, and if D&D doesn't offer me the experience i like, i'll look elsewhere... i'm not really tied to the D&D brand.
Celebrim
Legend
Balance of spotlight is always an issue, and I do coach players away from very limited skill monkey concepts that will tend to only shine in narrow situations - particularly if they aren't the party 'Diplomancer'. However, I don't think this problem applies to straight sorcerer or straight wizard characters even if they are deliberately being sub-optimal in spell selection particularly if they have a blaster focus where they can at least do something in combat.
Well, that's a crude way to put it, but yes, I do know that Hussar has absolutely zero trust in DM impartiality. His every position is dominated by the belief that the DM is just out to screw him. How he's stayed in RPGs this long I've never quite understood, since he's pretty open about his overall disatisfaction with his play experience until quite recently.
But your characterization is an over simplification of both of our positions on mechanics. Hussar is a staunch believer in RAW, but only as it enhances player agency. On an issue like recruiting NPCs, Hussar pretty much believes that the correct approach to, "I want to recruit a squire.", is to not to turn that into an adventure or side quest or to site lack of rules support for a 1st level character acquiring a cohort, but for the DM to pretty much say, "Ok, quickly sketch out the character you want as a squire so that we can get on with what's important." In other words, Hussars position is the rules are there to empower the players, but whenever the rules interfere with the player getting what they want, the DM has rule zero to override the rules so that player can get what he wants. Hussar's position on the Leadership feat is inconsistant with his past positions on hirelings, retainers, etc.
Oddly though, what I just attributed to Hussar is not that different than my own position. Where we really disagree is over that idea of "what the player wants". Hussar approaches that from the position of immediatecy - right now the player wants a squire, to find the ancient tomb, to get a +5 sword, therefore give it to him. The reason Hussar is in this thread is because he very much is a 'here and now' type player. I approach it from a more meta level, the player's desire is for an engaging story, to get a sense of accomplishment by overcoming challenges, to develop and explore the character he's chosen to play, etc. I'm more of a 'enjoy the journey so that the story can develop momentum' advocate. Pacing is a huge argument between us. Hussar thinks I infinitely delay getting payoffs. I think Hussar disatisfaction with play is directly related to his never actually waiting to recieve them.
That's a whole other thread, and I think it only loosely related to both the thread at the roots of Hussar and my disagreements.
We don't that much disagree. Spellcasters are explicitly allowed to theme there spells in any way that makes sense to the story provided it doesn't alter the mechanics. So a pyromancer that knew scare could theme his narration by saying he emolated and blew out a stream of smoke and sparks, provided that the mechical resolution of his narration was RAW (all the special effects don't matter). A pyromancer that wants to color his magic missiles as flaming darts may do so, provided they don't mechanically change. For mechanical changes, I'm pretty open to players creating new spells provided I get final say over the implementation and level, and I explicitly allow spell research and allow collecting books that speed magical research to the point that it can be fit into a campaign story without interrupting it. Otherwise, you've several options for 0th and 1st level fire spells in my RAW - flame dart, fire slap, minute meteors, affect normal fires, endure elements and burning hands come to mind immediately. Combined with the Elementalist feat, that will ensure your a relatively powerful blaster. If you need more variaty and you are a Wizard, it's recommended you pick up Elemental Substitution, so that you can cast say Elementally Substituted Fire Shocking Grasp or latter on Elementally Substituted Fire Cone of Cold.
None of that is particularly far from what you are capable of RAW. I think some tables force players to pick up a feat if they want to style their spells, but I consider it fairly stupid to charge players feats for flavor only considering they only get a few feats.
Well, I've anticipated that, and this is why a) there is no such thing as fire immunity in my game. Even fire elementals can be burned, though admittedly, you have to be pretty epic to do it. And, b) there is an Elemental Penetration feat that halves the fire resistance of all your targets. So, hit the fire elemental with a maximized empowered fireball while you have Elemental Penetration (Fire), and teach it the real meaning of Hot.
"Your intimidation appears to be successful. The Elder Fire Elemental tremples in fear, a mouth like a blast furnace opens and with a voice like the cracking of trees in a forest fire it says, "Mercy. Dreadful Master, wielder of the heart flame, do not be angry with us, we are but a faltering torch. Command us. Teach us. Show us how to burn as you do!!"
Blaster type mages as really easy to support and balance IMO, because there impact on play is fairly predictable. And if you can't tell, I'm really big on PC's having influence. NPC's aren't there just to sacrifice themselves futilely on the PC's XP point alter. If they figure out they are outclassed, they don't necessarily fight to the death. Then again, I give XP for talking your way through problems, something you seem to characterize as, "DM may I?"
Balesir
Adventurer
I came to the realisation sometime around the early 2000s - and I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has come to the same view - that there is a very serious issue that runs far, far deeper than "DM impartiality".
However impartial, a DM - like any human being - has a "world view" that describes (models, even) the way that they think of the world as working. It informs how they believe any circumstance arises, how any event works. And these world models all have one important thing in common. They are all wrong.
I'm not being superior or contentious, here - my own model is most definitely included. The sum total of human knowledge does not understand everything, so far, so it remains quite impossible for any individual human to hold a correct and accurate view of how the world works.
What does this mean for RPGs? Quite simply that basing "the way the world works" on one person's world model is a problematic way to proceed for two reasons. The first is that the others involved will certainly have different models; one consequence of the "all models are wrong" circumstance is that "no two models are the same". This can lead to "assumption clash" and in extremis can lead to one player having actual experience that demonstrates that the GM's view of "how something would play out" is flawed.
The second reason that the approach is problematic is that, in order to give the players of the game a sufficiently good idea of how the game world really works, a huge amount of communication is needed. Worse still, this communication is likely to cover large areas that the GM does not consider needs communicating because it's "obvious". It is, after all, their baseline assumption (even if wrong) for life.
My own experience, looking back and over the last few years, is that players end up not playing by any model of "how the (game)world works". They end up looking to the GM for social cues and body language that tells them whether or not their "great idea" fits what the GM can slot into his or her world model. In other words, they end up "playing the GM" rather than "playing the game".
The best way I have found to avoid this situation (which I now find rather unsavoury) is to shift the burden of communication about the "way the world works" to the rules. That way, several books and crafted game mechanisms can convey a heck of a lot about how situations in this world will be resolved. It is in the nature of RPGs that some gaps will remain - although the likes of 4E's "page 42" can go a long way to give a good picture even for some of these - but those can be so seldom met as to be resolvable by negotiation and chance without holding up play unduly.
In other words, GM impartiality is needed, yes, but it still doesn't address the core of the issue. Even an "impartial" GM has 'biases' that arise simply from the way they believe the world is. You can't remove that - it's part of being human.
Fascinating post. And very illuminating into "clashing assumptions"
There is another way to look at it (neither right not wrong, just an aspect or flavor of the situation you propose).
The DM's world view gives a consistent flavor to the world setting, that once players get used to it (which may take more for some or less for others) allows for an interactable experience with a world different from our own.
[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], Like you say in your post, clashing assumptions or "view" of the model can lead to player/DM or player/player (don't forget them) conflicts.
But as the group plays, one would hope that friends fine tune their assumptions into a "shared" model that is greater than the sum of its parts. I have been in combat, and some things my DM does in game combat wouldn't work, I've explained my views, he took a few and tossed a few out...we play on fine.
IMHO if there are any big huge show stoppers (I'M RIGHT YOU BAS#$%! and I"LL PROVE IT) the friends have bigger issues.
BL: This is from the viewpoint of a ongoing group. If you are constantly playing pickup games or have rotating people, then you will continuously have group forming issues as personality clashes have not been resolved (group dynamics: forming, storming, norming). And this would make the shared viewpoint of the world being based on the RAW more important.
I could type more...but that was a little rambling, I hope my point came through, in relation to your insightful post.
Balesir
Adventurer
I view this as another route to the same destination - and it's possible, sure. What you are doing is generating "house rules" about how stuff works in your shared world. Whether you write them down or just remember them, you end up with a set of rules about how stuff works in "your game".
This is fine, but I find it has two problems:
1) The rules you end up with can be a lot less clean and coordinated. Actually, maybe this is why folks keen to play this way like AD&D/OD&D? Since it is rather messy and uncoordinated to begin with, it feels fine to just add more on the top...
2) You tend to end up with the same rules every time for the same group. One of the great things about RPGs is that you can play in a world quite different to our own. By having the (more all-encompassing) rules written out beforehand, you give both GM and players something solid that defines that world. If it's left to the GM every time, they will have some assumptions that just never get changed or removed.
Add to this that starting with the rules already written to include all or most circumstances gets us going much faster than a "develop in play" approach to the rules does, I'm sold (these days) on having "rules to cover all PC-gameworld interactions" from the beginning.
