D&D (2024) The Focus Fire Problem

[billd91]

The real problem is that WotC is afraid to penalize players for any action they want to take, either in character creation or in play. This just a symptom.

How often do you see things like complications of shooting missiles into a fight do you see in the inspirational media? How often do you see wizards running out of spells and resorting to a crossbow or darts?
You see Legolas shooting in close quarters in LotR without hitting his companions. You see characters flinging around attacks in anime with extreme precision without hitting their companions. You see sorcerers like Dr. Strange constantly using spells even in a drawn out superhero fight in the comics without whipping out a crossbow.
So why should anyone be surprised when players want to play like the character they see in inspirational media?

 

[James Gasik]

How often do you see things like complications of shooting missiles into a fight do you see in the inspirational media? How often do you see wizards running out of spells and resorting to a crossbow or darts?
You see Legolas shooting in close quarters in LotR without hitting his companions. You see characters flinging around attacks in anime with extreme precision without hitting their companions. You see sorcerers like Dr. Strange constantly using spells even in a drawn out superhero fight in the comics without whipping out a crossbow.
So why should anyone be surprised when players want to play like the character they see in inspirational media?

This is pretty much it. D&D is pushed as the fantasy TTRPG, where you can play out the kinds of stories and events you read in books or see in shows or movies. If the rules don't reflect that fantasy in any way, that might be a problem for the audience WotC wants to woo.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it's more a symptom of pushing so hard for simplicity/accessibility that they are outright opposed to intentional rules complexity, even though the game has plenty of unintentional rules complexity.

The reason I say that is that the same attitude you're describing applies to monsters/NPCs just as much to PCs. If it was just about "penalizing players" (or rather not wanting to), we wouldn't see that. We'd see monsters able to totally mess up - but they also cannot.

Because they also want to make the game simple for the DM. Simple and easy to get into (and buy product for) is practically the only thing they care about. They assume DMs don't want to have keep track of much, so they remove all but the most obvious options for monsters. They assume players don't want to have any downside to what they play or what they can do, so restrictions and penalties become a thing of the past, and struggle as a concept is reduced to lip service in the official text, in favor of guaranteeing every PC can have their personal "narrative" play out the way they want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How often do you see things like complications of shooting missiles into a fight do you see in the inspirational media? How often do you see wizards running out of spells and resorting to a crossbow or darts?
You see Legolas shooting in close quarters in LotR without hitting his companions. You see characters flinging around attacks in anime with extreme precision without hitting their companions. You see sorcerers like Dr. Strange constantly using spells even in a drawn out superhero fight in the comics without whipping out a crossbow.
So why should anyone be surprised when players want to play like the character they see in inspirational media?

I see your point, but for my part, inspirational media and playing like my favorite character from TV or film are not my concerns in D&D.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

that might be a problem for the audience WotC wants to woo

I don't think it's "might", I think it definitely would be.

in favor of guaranteeing every PC can have their personal "narrative" play out the way they want

Except the problem with that is, it's not remotely true.

I'm not saying that to critique you, but it's not true. If it was a goal, they've failed, abysmally. D&D PCs have extremely little power, and very little narrative control particularly. That's as true in 5E as it was in 2E. There's not even a question. In 4E maybe they had a little more.

There are games where PCs do have more power, and players can "play out a personal narrative" (usually cooperatively), but D&D is definitely not one of them. D&D is more like, you get to build this character which PURPORTS to be this and PURPORTS to offer this narrative, but the rules don't actually allow, let alone force it - it's actually entirely up to the DM to support it, if they feel like it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I see your point, but for my part, inspirational media and playing like my favorite character from TV or film are not my concerns in D&D.

Yeah but if D&D was any less friendly to that, it wouldn't be looking at 30-50m players, it'd be looking at 3-5m (like PF1E had), or less, and a couple of other games would be in excess of 10m, most likely.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think it's "might", I think it definitely would be.


Except the problem with that is, it's not remotely true.

I'm not saying that to critique you, but it's not true. If it was a goal, they've failed, abysmally. D&D PCs have extremely little power, and very little narrative control particularly. That's as true in 5E as it was in 2E. There's not even a question. In 4E maybe they had a little more.

There are games where PCs do have more power, and players can "play out a personal narrative" (usually cooperatively), but D&D is definitely not one of them. D&D is more like, you get to build this character which PURPORTS to be this and PURPORTS to offer this narrative, but the rules don't actually allow, let alone force it - it's actually entirely up to the DM to support it, if they feel like it.

But the text encourages it, and so does the marketing. When 5.5 rolls around, you can bet the game will lean more toward that style of play.

 

[Helldritch]

How often do you see things like complications of shooting missiles into a fight do you see in the inspirational media? How often do you see wizards running out of spells and resorting to a crossbow or darts?
You see Legolas shooting in close quarters in LotR without hitting his companions. You see characters flinging around attacks in anime with extreme precision without hitting their companions. You see sorcerers like Dr. Strange constantly using spells even in a drawn out superhero fight in the comics without whipping out a crossbow.
So why should anyone be surprised when players want to play like the character they see in inspirational media?

In Super Hero movies? Never.
In war movies, friendly fire is a thing.
In good novels and movies we often see the heroic sniper calling: " I can't get a free shot!"
In good realistic movies and novels, we often see the police officer failling to get to his/her gun because the vilain got too close.
In good fantasy novels, we see the hero get in close combat with the evil wizard and that means that the wizard is done for.
In good novels and movies, heroes can run out of ammo (or even spells/power etc...)

But...
Super hero movies are especially bad at making heroes look bad. Especially Marvel (and I am a Marvel Fan, own all movies). DC is a bit better about that (but not by much).

And need I remind you that Legolas missed that big torch bearing orc when it was most inappropriate...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah but if D&D was any less friendly to that, it wouldn't be looking at 30-50m players, it'd be looking at 3-5m (like PF1E had), or less, and a couple of other games would be in excess of 10m, most likely.

You're probably right. Even so, the game catering to that 30-50m is not really the game I want.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In war movies, friendly fire is a thing.

Not in a "constant problem" way, though, that's just wrong.

Friendly fire is only ever an issue in war movies when it's Very Dramatic. It's huge deal when it comes up, whatever the cause. A whole scene will pivot on it. But most of the time? Not an issue.

In good novels and movies we often see the heroic sniper calling: " I can't get a free shot!"

Examples?

In good realistic movies and novels, we often see the police officer failling to get to his/her gun because the vilain got too close.

No, in bad and unrealistic movies we see that constantly. That's absolutely classic trope of '80s-style action. Don't pretend this is a "good" or "realistic" thing. In "realistic" stuff it'd much harder for people to lose their weapons (certainly trained professionals rather than beat cops). You're calling Supernatural and the A-Team "realistic" here, dude.

In good fantasy novels, we see the hero get in close combat with the evil wizard and that means that the wizard is done for.

No we do not. If you disagree provide examples. Usually this is only the case if the Good Guy has the Magic Sword or whatever that counters the Bad Guy, and that's why it's bad for the Bad Guy.

In good novels and movies, heroes can run out of ammo (or even spells/power etc...)

Examples? I've seen plenty of terrible movies where people ran out of ammo, and plenty of good and even great ones where they didn't. This is just silly nonsense that has no bearing on whether a movie is good/bad, and it's easy to show.