D&D 5E Just One More Thing: The Power of "No" in Design (aka, My Fun, Your Fun, and BadWrongFun)

[GreyLord]

Absolutely.

We all go on a rant sometimes (well, maybe not all, maybe not even most, but some of us).

And on this thought above, I thought I'd put in my own little thought pertaining to the absolute necessities of why A+B should not equal C, because when C is added, it is adding far too much.

Better than to simply have A+B rather than add C, because as we know, C detracts too much from A and B.

In the occasion when C is added, and A+B=C is unavoidable, by no means should we add D or Y or X to this formula.

I find that when those darn Aliens from Alpha Centauri wish to add X, Y, or D, it makes the entire formula an absolute torrent of unacceptable ratios, graphs, and formulas.

Before you know it, not only was it A+B = C in the past, but now we suddenly have (A+X) + (B+Y) = C or some such, it can even get more insane as they continue volumes of additional reformations of the same configuration. Then we suddenly have an even more complex D(AX-BY) - P(CZ - B) = WV.

Why can't we just simply it to F(x) or F(z) rather than go through all the byzantine complications of continuously changing the formula?

It absolutely detracts from the fun of A+B=C when we add in other additions to the abstract notations of our ideas. If we keep it simple, anyone can understand that A+B=C, but how many really can comprehend that ~D(∞π) - (AB)ˣ = Y when presented in such a way that adds so many nonsense arbitrations of abstract notation?

So, verily you will understand my consternation at such additions to my formulas. I cannot comprehend how I can simply see A+B=C in the same light ever again. Though I'd love to continue, I find I am fast running out of thought to present, so will simply have to end this discussion of my dislike of additional modifiers soon. In addition, I am running out of words and vocabulary supported by my 3rd grade level of English perfection, thus I must soon make my concluding point before the neutron pulses of Orion's Belt inaugurate a fatal pulse of solar magnetism.

As such, I'd like to conclude by absolutely stating...A Goblin might not be able to kill a Dragon but with a fairly odd roll of 20 vs. the Dragons unfortunate day of only rolling 1s.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I'm going to have to disagree. Adding more stuff is always better (where better is defined as having more stuff).

 

[Coroc]

I would give you 10 likes if I could, if you would have split up your OP into 4 paragraphs posted separately I could have given you at least 4.
Besides addressing the issue perfectly you gave me some good laughs.
Here is some of what I liked best of your arguments (citations in italics):

...Additions for the sake of additions are the bane of thoughtful design...
And that's why dragonborn should not be shoehorned except there where they really might fit in

...and the PHB3 "Play as a Gelatinous Cube"?
OMG I hope you did not seed some idea into people now "But I want to play my Gelatinous cube paladin in your darksun campaign. You are SO grognard and a declared enemy of diversity !"

One is to sandbox certain features (bounded accuracy is kind of a way of doing that!)
Wow, I never thought about it that way, but yes sandbox can also mean sandbox to the core mechanic aka crunch so you can mod more safely!

Tbh everyone as he likes at his table and I do not have problems modding, leaving out, converting and even ADDING stuff. You are reading correctly, I do not only restrict stuff sometimes I add some things.
E.g. intimidation based on Str (Fighters) or even Con (Dwarven Fighters) is a houserule I am totally fine with.
Why ? Because it does not hurt at all! You might say ah no, the fighter guy did not invest in Cha so why is he allowed to do so? I say yes, he can intimidate based on Str at my table that does not mean he can bluff, perform or gets a good save vs charm. He intimidates well, because that is a property a strong fighter eventually should have, no matter if he wins a beauty contest.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fenris-77]

I'll throw in that I agree that a whole lot of the things people might want vis a vis crunch, classes, magic and whatever is a niche that is nicely filled by 3PP releases. DMs are just as free to include any of that material as they are WOtC stuff so it might as well be canon as far as a home game goes. However, it doesn't impact AL play, and it doesn't force DMs to make a whole ton of decisions about what to allow or not as far as canon content goes.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Defcon makes some great points in his post (and does most of the time). But I can't agree completely on winning D&D is keeping the character alive and that though some people may find it difficult to 'self-nerf' this is not a big problem. I have have played in and play in one now and always try to run my campaigns, though not always successfully that the story is more important than the character. A have seen players sacrifice their character for the greater good of the story (in this chase the party to escape) and even though the character died the player certainly felt that he was a 'winner'.

If more people subscribed to your feelings (as I also do)... then we wouldn't have this issue. But quite frankly... anyone who has been on these boards for any length of time knows that story trumping mechanics is not what a good percentage of the people here believe in.

This is why we have seen thread after thread after thread of "What do we do about the Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter feats?" Those feats supposedly unbalance the game, and every melee character (for the former) or ranged one (for the latter) is going to take them because you'd have to be an idiot not to. But then they turn around and say "Well, ya know... I'd LIKE to see things like the Actor feat taken once in a while, because I'm just so bored with PCs that all have GWM and SS."

And why do those players always take those feats? Because for their characters to be "competent" melee or ranged warriors, they feel like they HAVE to take those feats, if for no other reason than in the game world a person could do all that extra damage from the -5 / +10. Thus if their PC doesn't... then obviously their PC isn't truly great at their job. And the idea that their character isn't great at their job rankles them so much that yes, they will continue to take those feats if they are in the game. Which means the "bored DM" then has to make the conscious decision to NOT include those feats in their game, just so other options will get selected instead (because the players have "no choice".)

But of course... then you get DM versus player conflict when the DM is trying to nerf the players by not including all the mechanical options available in the game, and so the DM goes ahead and allows them to stay because goodness forbid they stand up to their players. Which means their ONLY remaining recourse is to DEMAND WotC give us Errata to "fix" these feats-- so that the feats can remain in the game but not be so good that players will not just choose them automatically. As though doing that will somehow then inspire those players to finally take the Actor feat. (Which of course is complete and utter bullcrap.)

If there are players who actually care about story rather than mechanics... their problem is solved. Because if they want their PC to be "the best swordsman in the land"... they just CALL themselves that. And they can take a Personality Quirk where they believe themselves to be "the best swordsman in the land". And they go on adventures where they can show off being "the best swordsman in the land". And that can all happen without the player taking every single white-room "best in class" mechanical ability. Because guess what? Even if your "best swordsman in the land" did have every single "best in class" mechanical ability... that character is still going to roll a whole heap of '1s'. Your PC is going to occasionally look stupid as a swordsman, with or without having taken every "best in class" mechanical ability. They just are. So using the mechanics to exemplify it is actually a fool's errand-- just roleplay it and I suspect you'll see it play out in the narrative a whole lot easier and much more successfully because your DM will help you narratively fulfill it. Especially if you have stopped taking all those repetitive game mechanics over and over and over that they've grown bored with.

The DM is happy because other game mechanics are used... and the player is happy because they can identify themselves as "the best swordsman in the land" and the story and campaign will facilitate it (without the dice needing to even get much involved.)

 

[Fenris-77]

Those threads about GWM ans SS make me laugh. Those feats are not what tilts the balance of the game on the whole. Maybe at some points in low to mid tier play they might seem really good, but they don't have a patch on what a high level caster brings to the table in terms of tilt. Interestingly I think the proliferation of feat 'fix' related threads supports the idea that far less people play at tier IV. The preoccupation with feats reflects the tiers of play most common to those people and their groups.

Also, I agree with pretty much everything in the post above mine. Nicely done sir.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[jayoungr]

That sounds a bit condescending to me...

I don't mean to imply that you're "playing wrong" or anything like that. Maybe "sad" wasn't quite the right word. I'm just thinking you must have to make new characters, or even migrate to new systems, pretty often, and it seems like that would kind of suck unless the rest of your group feels the same.