D&D 5E Respect Mah Authoritah: Thoughts on DM and Player Authority in 5e

[hawkeyefan]

Strong features, sure, but they should merely make you gradationally better at those things rather than be "I win" buttons. Problem is, they're often kind of described as, and too often interpreted as, making a character perfect at what it does rather than better-but-still-not-perfect.

The examples @Manbearcat gave all would be violating the ability as it's presented in the book. Not interpreted....but how it is very clearly described. They require that the ranger and his party be in the chosen terrain, but if that's the case and they travel for an hour or more, then they get those benefits.

This is the ability as described. Its one of the key class abilities of a ranger, and requires them to pick a specific terrain in which it will work. Why take it away?

And here's a perfect example. "They [will] take you in..." "These folks will risk everything..." Etc.

"Will" is an absolute, and therein lies the problem. Far better to replace it with "are more likely to" or even "are very likely to", to get away from the absolutes and thus from the win-button interpretations.

That's the conversation that I think needs to happen here.

Why? What's the harm in letting the ability function as presented? What's lost by use of this ability? What's gained by its removal?

 

[billd91]

Strong features, sure, but they should merely make you gradationally better at those things rather than be "I win" buttons. Problem is, they're often kind of described as, and too often interpreted as, making a character perfect at what it does rather than better-but-still-not-perfect.

And here's a perfect example. "They [will] take you in..." "These folks will risk everything..." Etc.

"Will" is an absolute, and therein lies the problem. Far better to replace it with "are more likely to" or even "are very likely to", to get away from the absolutes and thus from the win-button interpretations.

That's the conversation that I think needs to happen here.

I'm OK with the will here. It doesn't mean that they'll do so out in the open and in front of their oppressors. It doesn't mean you can just walk up to the front door. It may mean we have to get creative. "More likely to" gives me an out as a DM to stymie the PC here, and I don't necessarily want that.
I will also go on record here as saying I'm perfectly OK with the druid restriction that they "will not wear metal armor" too.
Absolutes are sometimes better than a higher degree of freedom.

 

[Lanefan]

The examples @Manbearcat gave all would be violating the ability as it's presented in the book. Not interpreted....but how it is very clearly described. They require that the ranger and his party be in the chosen terrain, but if that's the case and they travel for an hour or more, then they get those benefits.

This is the ability as described. Its one of the key class abilities of a ranger, and requires them to pick a specific terrain in which it will work. Why take it away?

Why? What's the harm in letting the ability function as presented? What's lost by use of this ability? What's gained by its removal?

Why the immediate jump to suggesting I'm proposing its removal?

All I'm saying is that these abilities should make a character better at stuff, but not perfect.

So, instead of a Ranger NEVER becoming lost, the chance of a Ranger ceboming lost goes from (hypothetically) 50% down to 10%. The ability is still helping, but it's not providing an outright gurantee of success.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Why the immediate jump to suggesting I'm proposing its removal?

All I'm saying is that these abilities should make a character better at stuff, but not perfect.

So, instead of a Ranger NEVER becoming lost, the chance of a Ranger ceboming lost goes from (hypothetically) 50% down to 10%. The ability is still helping, but it's not providing an outright gurantee of success.

You’re removing the abilities as they exist in favor of an altered version is what I mean.

The ability is only relevant in the Ranger’s favored terrain. So they can still get lost, just not in their favored terrain.

With that in mind, what is gained by reducing the effect of an ability that’s already got a pretty narrow application?

Why not let the ranger be perfect in mountains? What is gained by reducing the ability as you suggest?

 

[loverdrive]

For example, you can have a table with an "all about the combat" player, a "beer & pretzels" player, a "hardcore RP" player, a "I'm just here because my girlfriend dragged me here" player, a "I like to map and write drown treasure" player, and so on.

I don't think it's because of some kind of inherent nature of D&D 5E or it's model of division of authority. It's just a byproduct of D&D being the default game.

Such a group wouldn't work in, say, Masks because people who play Masks are probably there to play teenage superhero drama, because they're enthusiastic enough about TTRPGs as a hobby to know what they want and enjoy, so they have higher expectations for each other.

I ran enough s##t (oh my ugliest fattesr cannibal gods, why I can't swear here) on conventions with randos, and pretty much any game short of serious games about trauma and all that adult jazz works fine with a diverse table. I might not pparticularly enjoy it, but I don't enjoy D&D games with a group that wants five different things either.

 

[Umbran]

It's doable out of the gate...

That it can be done, in general, does not mean everyone will like doing it, or be good at it. And, a lot of GMs get a lot of their entertainment out of the preparation - it is a task many enjoy doing.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You’re removing the abilities as they exist in favor of an altered version is what I mean.

The ability is only relevant in the Ranger’s favored terrain. So they can still get lost, just not in their favored terrain.

With that in mind, what is gained by reducing the effect of an ability that’s already got a pretty narrow application?

Why not let the ranger be perfect in mountains? What is gained by reducing the ability as you suggest?

It may help to remember that @Lanefan does not play 5e so their suggestions might best be taken in that context. Not to speak for them, but what might be gained is to make the 5e Ranger more like the version of the Ranger they know really well from their modified 1e game.

That said, I agree with you that the Ranger should never get lost in their favored terrain (except by magical means). But I don't agree that it makes them "perfect" in their favored terrain. They don't auto-know the exact directions to a never-seen-before location, for example. But they'll certainly hone in on it a lot better than most any other character.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It may help to remember that @Lanefan does not play 5e so their suggestions might best be taken in that context. Not to speak for them, but what might be gained is to make the 5e Ranger more like the version of the Ranger they know really well from their modified 1e game.

Sure, I am genuinely asking what's to be gained. I can't think of any reasons that I'd feel were all that reasonable/convincing, but that doesn't mean there can't be a reason.

That said, I agree with you that the Ranger should never get lost in their favored terrain (except by magical means). But I don't agree that it makes them "perfect" in their favored terrain. They don't auto-know the exact directions to a never-seen-before location, for example. But they'll certainly hone in on it a lot better than most any other character.

Yeah, there are still limits to what they can do. I just find the ability to be solid to make a ranger seem like every example we see in fiction.

I think that if a GM wants to challenge a ranger with favored terrain of "mountains" then they should do it another way than trying to have the ranger get lost in the mountains.

 

[Manbearcat]

I wonder how many GMs who dispute that D&D has “Win Cons” also lament their players having “I Win Buttons.”

It all feels very “Yogi Berra-ey.”

EDIT - @overgeeked ”Win Cons” is short for “Win Conditions.” “I do this thing and I achieve my goal.”

 

[overgeeked]

It may help to remember that @Lanefan does not play 5e so their suggestions might best be taken in that context. Not to speak for them, but what might be gained is to make the 5e Ranger more like the version of the Ranger they know really well from their modified 1e game.

That said, I agree with you that the Ranger should never get lost in their favored terrain (except by magical means). But I don't agree that it makes them "perfect" in their favored terrain. They don't auto-know the exact directions to a never-seen-before location, for example. But they'll certainly hone in on it a lot better than most any other character.

I play 5E and I agree with Lanefan. Rangers favored terrain benefits are way too good. I cut them back to advantage or simply have rangers take the alternate feature from Tasha's instead. Outlander is also advantage instead of auto-win. I'm not a fan of features giving players skip buttons without some cost attached.