D&D General Compelling and Differentiated Gameplay For Spellcasters and Martial Classes

[Monayuris]

I'm going to go back and dig down on what I tried to convey above.

"Why is heavy referee curation (in the way of 'tailoring play' and 'spotlight dissemination') a problem for 'Challenge-Based-Play?"

Consider sports competition. Lets go with basketball as most are familiar with that.

A referee has enforced the ruleset neutrally through the first 3 quarters. The outcome of that neutral enforcement is that team x is up by 20 points on team y and the game isn't remotely in the balance. In fact, its basically over.

Deciding that it would be better for team y and for viewership if the game was still in the balance, the referee begins tailoring their adjudication of events (and disseminating spotlight as a byproduct) such that team y cuts the lead in half with 8 minutes left to play. With 4 minutes left to play its a 2 possession game. Perhaps they start adjudicating the always difficult "block/charge" call in favor of team y. Maybe they let team y get away with more physical (illegal) defense, which leads to turnovers and failed offensive possessions for team x. Maybe they start calling more soft fouls on team x.

Viewership re-engages.

Team y feels good about things as does their fans.

Team x (and team x's fans)? Not so much.

And, most relevant to our discussion, the actual competitive integrity, the actual emergent property of the authenticity of two forces colliding and getting to find out which prevails...that is all damaged irreparably...due to the signal of referee intervention.

THAT is why "tailoring of play" and "spotlight dissemination" are completely dysfunctional with the sort of Challenge-Based-Gaming that @Campbell is invoking. The apex priority of play is rendered obsolete.

Challenge-Based-Gaming does't possess the apex play priority of "tell a fun, collective story with a lead-storyteller who adjudicates toward the most/best fun." Hopefully fun emerges out of play as a byproduct...but the primary aim is the satisfaction of finding out who wins/overcomes (team PC or team Obstacles) in a competitive environment.

And who wins/overcomes doesn't just mean the players. It also means finding out who wins/overcomes amidst the PCs and what to make of those PCs after they win/lose, overcome/relent. If a GM and the table wants to find out if PC x overcomes their addiction or falls ever deeper beyond the point of return...then no punches can be pulled by the GM...no tailoring of play. The only thing that the GM can do is frame the situation, play the adversity, and play by the rules until we find out if we have a story of absolution, redemption, or a story of crushing loss.

It is 100% possible to have a "Challenge Based Gaming" experience in a game that features heavy DM adjudication. "Challenge Based Gaming" was the hallmark of Classic D&D (OD&D, B/X, etc) before the game became more formalized with precise rules.

The DM doesn't have to enforce only just the ruleset. The DM can enforce the ruleset plus their own modifications and rulings that achieve the game they want as long as they do so consistently and fairly.

That apex priority of play can be achieved in other ways than just neutrally following the ruleset.

 

[Campbell]

I did provide one specific thing I think could work - maneuvers that used attacks as a resource so you could have potent attacks that could use two or three attacks and provide powerful buffs and debuffs. Another thing that could be done is providing a wide selection of situational bonus actions and reactions so there's more of an opportunity cost.

 

[Monayuris]

There are quite a few interesting maneuvers in the Attack Options section DMG that can help in this situation.

Shove / Knock prone - I had a fighter in one of my games used a shove action to push a golem off a cliff.
Overrun - barrel through the front line to get to the leader / spell caster (can be done as an action or bonus action so you can still get your attack in)
Tumble - move past enemies without having to disengage and provoke attacks of opportunity.
Grapple - I've had barbarians literally grab enemies, hold them in place and beat the crap out of them.

Cleaving through creatures can be used - this will let melee characters roll over additional damage after killing a creature onto a new creature.

All of these are free to use and available to any martial character (don't require feats or special powers).

Most of these abilities are based on Athletics or Acrobatics. Most monsters aren't proficient so their raw strength is going up against a proficient character's bonus. This gives fighters an edge. I suppose Wizards can do these too, but you can just rule they can't as they aren't trained in martial combat.

 

[FrogReaver]

I did provide one specific thing I think could work - maneuvers that used attacks as a resource so you could have potent attacks that could use two or three attacks and provide powerful buffs and debuffs. Another thing that could be done is providing a wide selection of situational bonus actions and reactions so there's more of an opportunity cost.

Are you only looking for more combat oriented tactical features? My biggest concern has been out of combat stuff.

 

[Manbearcat]

It is 100% possible to have a "Challenge Based Gaming" experience in a game that features heavy DM adjudication. "Challenge Based Gaming" was the hallmark of Classic D&D (OD&D, B/X, etc) before the game became more formalized with precise rules.

The DM doesn't have to enforce only just the ruleset. The DM can enforce the ruleset plus their own modifications and rulings that achieve the game they want as long as they do so consistently and fairly.

That apex priority of play can be achieved in other ways than just neutrally following the ruleset.

I don''t disagree (I cut my teeth on this starting in 1984 with Moldvay Basic and have run one form or another of it since).

You subbed "adjudication" for "curation." That is the problem. We aren't in disagreement.

Now put "curation" back in there (in the way I'm using it; eg tailoring play - both in action resolution decision-making and in framing situations/erecting obstacles during play - and deploying spotlight on player x, y, z at your discretion) and see how you feel about it.

My guess is that you'll feel similarly to me. That is "a curated experience for the sake of storytelling and equal involvement/screen-time as this pushes back hard (if not completely) against the apex play priorities of that classic challenge-based playstyle."

 

[Campbell]

Are you only looking for more combat oriented tactical features? My biggest concern has been out of combat stuff.

It's a big concern of mine as well. It is just harder to do within current structures. I think you need to somewhat define what skills can actually do if you want to build game play around them.

Barring that structurally I would think seriously about just giving at least the fighter types and Rogues Perception. It's such an important ability to realize many concepts and it is just better than most skills. It's also something most adventurers should be proficient.

It's a personal bugaboo of mine, but I would greatly expand who can get Expertise. I would just give it to more things for Bards and Rogues. I do not see a compelling reason why Fighters would not be able to have Expertise in Athletics or Intimidate. Also beyond the skills classes get automatically I would have most classes able to pick any skill for their picks.

I would also advocate for the return of Fighter strongholds and the like to give the various classes temporal power.

 

[Don Durito]

Spellcasters will usually dump Strength. So there's that.

But as cool as shoving people can be in the right circumstances. You can do it even better with a first level spell (Thunderwave)

 

[Monayuris]

I don''t disagree (I cut my teeth on this starting in 1984 with Moldvay Basic and have run one form or another of it since).

You subbed "adjudication" for "curation." That is the problem. We aren't in disagreement.

Now put "curation" back in there (in the way I'm using it; eg tailoring play - both in action resolution decision-making and in framing situations/erecting obstacles during play - and deploying spotlight on player x, y, z at your discretion) and see how you feel about it.

My guess is that you'll feel similarly to me. That is "a curated experience for the sake of storytelling and equal involvement/screen-time as this pushes back hard (if not completely) against the apex play priorities of that classic challenge-based playstyle."

Good point. I think we are definitely in agreement here. You are right that I did change the terminology in this case and 'play-by-play' adjustment of the game experience would be undesirable.

But if I were to keep the term of "curation", I would consider the idea of curation on a global/campaign wide scale. For example, a statement that the DM will "curate" the campaign to throw in options and opportunities for martial characters to excel. But, be consistent through the entire campaign. As if it was something explained during a session-0 and I would have expectations that this would be implemented.

I think there is space for a DM to just approach the game with regard to adding spotlight to non-casters as curation. I would consider this approach of curation as a global fundamental of a campaign to be acceptable. in this case.

Of course consistency is the main rub. It is difficult for even the best DM's to be consistent. But I would respect one who made the honest effort.

 

[Monayuris]

Spellcasters will usually dump Strength. So there's that.

But as cool as shoving people can be in the right circumstances. You can do it even better with a first level spell (Thunderwave)

Thunderwave is a first level spell, which means
1. The wizard has to have it prepared
2. They can only do it a limited number of times per day.
3. There may be better uses of their 1st level spell slots.
4. Thunderwave makes a very loud noise within 300', which will likely alert monsters.

Meanwhile a fighter can shove people around at will and do it more efficiently and with less consequences.

The point of spells is that they can be "I Win" buttons in very specific situations. But there are (or at least, there should be) consequences. If the consequences aren't severe enough for the effect of the spell, then it's a design issue.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Proof: If DM's don't tailor then why doesn't he throw Tiamat at level 1 PC's? Why doesn't he throw a group of 4 goblins at level 20 PC's?

There's no justifiable answer - because tailoring happens and is unavoidable.

First of all the point flew right over your head. No APARENT tailoring doesnt mean no tailoring. It means no tailoring likely to be percieved as such. And you probably knew that. But maybe it really did fly over your head. Even though it was clearly laid out.

Second unskilled people are in reality vaguely less likely to be around things that are way out of their general scale of danger than that of skilled people (at dangerous things like slaying abominations and gods like the tarrasque and tiamat) are for the same reason that a completely untrained person is less likely to find themselves sky diving unaccompanied during the descent. Dont be absurd. Note that this is a rule of thumb but it does apply to reality. This also applies to the goblins which ill explain if you must have me do so but i tire of striking the bloodied ground where a horse once lay dying.

Make an argument or dont but dont pretend to do so. Still not sure if thats what you did.