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

[Remathilis]

That is... factually inaccurate.

I mean, really, deeply, fundamentally inaccurate. To the point where... well. See, here's the real thing.

Every species has been, by trial and error, molded to fit into some ecological niche. With a few exceptions, a given organism will grow to the size that it needs to fill its niche... and then stop. If you take a human, and they continue to grow forever... that continued growth will kill them. Our bones and circulatory system designs have limits of body size they will support. The framework of a human only supports so much, before it becomes overloaded, unwieldy, and none of it functions well any more - something fundamental breaks, and the individual dies.

The reality is almost 100% the opposite of what you are saying above. So... not a great choice of example.

I mean, if you're reading it as "a cow can only grow until it reaches cow size" then yes, cows stop grow and the example is bunk. But consider the cow = a book and not cow = the game. Herd of cows = game. The herd must grow, find new food sources, produce offspring with desirable traits. If the herd does not, its going to die.

The game is the same way; it needs to find new ideas, experiment with new mechanics and trying new archetypes to grow. It selects the best (warlock) and pitches that which didn't work as intended (warlord). It seeks new places (settings and adventures) to feed the game. If it didn't, we'd be playing the same dead game since the 70s.

(And don't underestimate the psychological effect of a 'living' game; if games didn't need constant growth, then there would be no Pathfinder or OSR movement needed.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Remathilis]

Kine of Cattle.

Herd of cows? Of course I've heard of cows!

 

[Umbran]

I mean, if you're reading it as "a cow can only grow until it reaches cow size" then yes, cows stop grow and the example is bunk. But consider the cow = a book and not cow = the game. Herd of cows = game. The herd must grow, find new food sources, produce offspring with desirable traits. If the herd does not, its going to die.

Sorry, but no. If the herd grows too large, it overgrazes, and risks the entire herd. Healthy herds are of limited size, too.

There is no living natural system for which, "infinite growth" is a viable alternative. Natural systems live in spaces of limited resources, and limited resources means limits on size.

Heck, even stars, if they grow too large, burn themselves out quickly, explode, and die.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

the steady pit-pat as drool hits the floor

I always assumed that was a common response to anyone you had a conversation with.

 

[StormbringerAUS]

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.)

I don't disagree with anything you say here, my experience is different - in the years I have been running 5e (since the beginning) I have had about 30 characters through my games and as yet no one has taken GWM or SS, though I would not have issues if they did - though as you point out if everyone did maybe I wouldn't feel that way, sometimes it is just better to be lucky than good and it seems with the players I have I am lucky.

 

[MichaelSomething]

What if I wanted to use a class from The Masterclass Codex? That looks like it was produced by a person who really knows RPGs!

 

[pemerton]

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.

Why would rolling a 1 make the character look stupid as a swordsman? All rolling a 1 means is that, in that 6-second period, the character failed to deplete the stamina/staying power of his/her foe. That doesn't mean the PC looked stupid.

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

I would find this argument more persuasive if you were talking about a PC build and action resolution system based around free descriptors. But 5e is not such a system.

I think there are few D&D players who would think best sorcerer in the land as a PC label and personality quirk is a substitute for having access to spell slots. And if those spell slots are only 1st or 2nd level ones, that might tend to suggest that the description is a bit of a misnomer given that everyone knows there are casters of higher level spells out there in the world.

The mechanical framework of 5e makes it hard for me to take seriously that a character with (say) a single attack per round with +3 to hit and doing 1d8 damage is really the best swordsman in the land.

 

[Garthanos]

That is... factually inaccurate.

I mean, really, deeply, fundamentally inaccurate. To the point where... well. See, here's the real thing.

Every species has been, by trial and error, molded to fit into some ecological niche. With a few exceptions, a given organism will grow to the size that it needs to fill its niche... and then stop. If you take a human, and they continue to grow forever... that continued growth will kill them. Our bones and circulatory system designs have limits of body size they will support. The framework of a human only supports so much, before it becomes overloaded, unwieldy, and none of it functions well any more - something fundamental breaks, and the individual dies.

The reality is almost 100% the opposite of what you are saying above. So... not a great choice of example.

There are species of animal including Kangaroos which grow throughout their lives but exhibit no particular longevity. Some very very long lived species do grow throughout their lives (a type of pine). Technically if they arent growing they are dead. And there are species which do not really age including naked mole rats they do not continue growing. A lobster grows throughout its life unfortunately it outgrows its ability to make a new shell so to speak conforming to what you say so its growing will kill it although other than that flaw it isn't really otherwise aging. A truly weird Jellyfish is basically a phoenix reverting to an earlier stage of its lifecycle and regrowing when it "dies" due to trauma (not age). I think the closest species that CAN grow throughout their lives for certain is colony plants which basically grow sideways by sprouting more bodies with the same genetics the individual bodies can die but it could be seen as growing and receding growing and receding throughout a potentially infinite life much like that jellyfish although without loss of adulthood.

This stuff is fun