D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[EzekielRaiden]

I think that one of the draws of fantasy games is often the more simplistic and child-like depiction of good vs evil, wherein good guys beat up bad guys because that's what good guys do.

Obviously, in the real world things aren't so simple. To even know where to begin we often have to examine the philosophical or religious lens through which an individual views the world. Something that is good from one perspective may be evil from the perspective of a different moral framework.

Is barging into the warren of a bunch of goblins who were minding their own business, slaughtering them, and taking their stuff, the act of someone good? From a real world perspective it's extremely colonialist, and that's arguably the most positive thing I can say about it. But from a simpler perspective they were "bad guys" who were going to commit evil at some point and therefore stopping them is a good act. Even if, here in the real world, we recognize that as overly simplistic.

At my table we're all adults who know better, but for a few hours a week we like to forget about the complexities of the real world and return to a more simplistic and child-like view of what good is. So we don't generally worry about that stuff. There's nothing wrong with a little escapism.

The point being that good, particularly in the context of a fantasy game, is relative. And that good characters can absolutely shoot first and ask questions later, depending on the style of game you're playing.

I'll grant you much of this. Yet, I would also say that it is still possible to do better without having to make everything Super Complicated And Nuanced.

It's part of why, in my home game, I chose to go along with the Zakhara concept that nearly all sapient beings are welcome in society. I haven't actually had goblins (or gnomes, or a handful of other options) show up in-game yet. But there have been ogre caravanserai owners, minotaur vendors of fine dishware (), orc librarians, etc.

When people are bad? They're bandits and outlaws, just as you would if every sapient being were human. You don't have to make a big production of it. Just show what bad stuff they've done. If the players want to run it as a "justice for wrongs done" thing, they can--that's up to them. (Though they might want to think about what message that sends.)

And if you want enemies that can just be KOS zero thought required, well, that's not that hard. Vampires and ghuls make a great "sapient but evil" option, where killing the literal undead is straight-up a kindness to the poor soul trapped so. Mind flayers are another great choice, as are things like invading alien beings or Far Realm entities (or just stuff cribbed from Eberron, if you like; those guys are nasty.) Liches. Slavers actively abusing and/or killing their slaves. Etc. There are plenty of things you can do that are really obviously not okay, without having any amount of "hey...is it okay that we're just killing these goblins simply because they're goblins...who were living on this land...?"

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'll grant you much of this. Yet, I would also say that it is still possible to do better without having to make everything Super Complicated And Nuanced.

It's part of why, in my home game, I chose to go along with the Zakhara concept that nearly all sapient beings are welcome in society. I haven't actually had goblins (or gnomes, or a handful of other options) show up in-game yet. But there have been ogre caravanserai owners, minotaur vendors of fine dishware (), orc librarians, etc.

When people are bad? They're bandits and outlaws, just as you would if every sapient being were human. You don't have to make a big production of it. Just show what bad stuff they've done. If the players want to run it as a "justice for wrongs done" thing, they can--that's up to them. (Though they might want to think about what message that sends.)

And if you want enemies that can just be KOS zero thought required, well, that's not that hard. Vampires and ghuls make a great "sapient but evil" option, where killing the literal undead is straight-up a kindness to the poor soul trapped so. Mind flayers are another great choice, as are things like invading alien beings or Far Realm entities (or just stuff cribbed from Eberron, if you like; those guys are nasty.) Liches. Slavers actively abusing and/or killing their slaves. Etc. There are plenty of things you can do that are really obviously not okay, without having any amount of "hey...is it okay that we're just killing these goblins simply because they're goblins...who were living on this land...?"

Oh yeah, I generally agree. That's been a thing in my game for years. My cities tend to be melting pots. If a troll shows up in town looking for work, folks might give him the side eye, but they're generally going to accept him as long as he doesn't start running around eating people.

Sure, but if we're getting into it what's the burden of proof? If we're in a forest where goblins are known to rob and kill travelers, is it okay for us to kill the goblins in the warren? Or do we need some kind of evidence that these goblins have resorted to banditry?

Generally speaking, I'm going to leave that sort of thing up to the players. If they decide to take out the "evil" goblins without sufficient evidence, I'm certainly not going to tell them to replace their character's good alignment with evil. Even if, from a morally nuanced perspective, there's a perfectly reasonable argument for exactly that. They're having fun and blowing off steam. (As much as I love that show) we aren't playing The Good Place RPG.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Death spirals unevenly target certain styles of play. If they (death spirals) are implemented, those will be avoided. Which again, is fine from a "realism" perspective but awful from a "fun" perspective for anyone who likes those styles.

They also unevenly target certain characters. Those melee guys really can’t catch a break.

 

[Cadence]

I'll grant you much of this. Yet, I would also say that it is still possible to do better without having to make everything Super Complicated And Nuanced.

It's part of why, in my home game, I chose to go along with the Zakhara concept that nearly all sapient beings are welcome in society. I haven't actually had goblins (or gnomes, or a handful of other options) show up in-game yet. But there have been ogre caravanserai owners, minotaur vendors of fine dishware (), orc librarians, etc.

When people are bad? They're bandits and outlaws, just as you would if every sapient being were human. You don't have to make a big production of it. Just show what bad stuff they've done. If the players want to run it as a "justice for wrongs done" thing, they can--that's up to them. (Though they might want to think about what message that sends.)

And if you want enemies that can just be KOS zero thought required, well, that's not that hard. Vampires and ghuls make a great "sapient but evil" option, where killing the literal undead is straight-up a kindness to the poor soul trapped so. Mind flayers are another great choice, as are things like invading alien beings or Far Realm entities (or just stuff cribbed from Eberron, if you like; those guys are nasty.) Liches. Slavers actively abusing and/or killing their slaves. Etc. There are plenty of things you can do that are really obviously not okay, without having any amount of "hey...is it okay that we're just killing these goblins simply because they're goblins...who were living on this land...?"

Glen Cook's city of Tun Faire in his Garrett series of books has all the different species living as neighbors (with some of the real world factionalism and "people" acting like IRL people).

 

[Mort]

They also unevenly target certain characters. Those melee guys really can’t catch a break.

Right, melee martials already have it pretty tough. Implementing death spirals would make that infinitely worse and would drive away most players from choosing one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hatred of martials and corporate greed, one would assume.

Eh. It seems more related to an erroneous sense of realism. Its been a trait in more than one version of Shadowrun for example, which is hardly a game that hates combatants (of course in a modern game mages aren't any more likely to avoid damage than anyone else, since ranged weapons are the default case).

 

[Garthanos]

From a "realism" perspective sure, but from a "fun" perspective, yuck.

Death spirals unevenly target certain styles of play. If they (death spirals) are implemented, those will be avoided. Which again, is fine from a "realism" perspective but awful from a "fun" perspective for anyone who likes those styles.

They also unevenly target certain characters. Those melee guys really can’t catch a break.

Real world federal studies from the late nineties I have seen actually say that death spirals are not actually realistic ... continuing to fight at around 95 percent then dropping after the fight is realistic... as is going from near 100 to out of it.

 

[Lanefan]

From a "realism" perspective sure, but from a "fun" perspective, yuck.

Death spirals unevenly target certain styles of play. If they (death spirals) are implemented, those will be avoided. Which again, is fine from a "realism" perspective but awful from a "fun" perspective for anyone who likes those styles.

If death spirals deter the low-to-no-risk combat-as-sport style of play I'm all for them.

And to answer @Fanaelialae 's point: as a player I too like switching my brain off sometimes and just beating up on some bad guys...but I'm also willing not only to recognize but to sometimes even lean into the idea that our PCs are every bit as "bad guy" as the opposition, and sometimes worse. We're just better at being bad.

 

[Lanefan]

Right, melee martials already have it pretty tough. Implementing death spirals would make that infinitely worse and would drive away most players from choosing one.

Why, though? If the DM is doing a decent job of placing all the PCs in roughly-equal danger* via ranged attacks, AoE spells, ambushes, open-field combats where there is no front line, and sneaks getting behind the party's front line, the martials shouldn't suffer any more (or any less) than anyone else.

But if the DM only ever attacks the front-liners and never gets the back-liners' uniforms dirty, then yes; the tanks would get even more hosed than is already the case in such a game.

* - on average. Any individual battle could, of course, easily see one or two characters in grave danger while the others never take a scratch; be it due to luck of the draw, good (or bad!) planning, or the in-game situation at the time.

 

[James Gasik]

Why, though? If the DM is doing a decent job of placing all the PCs in roughly-equal danger* via ranged attacks, AoE spells, ambushes, open-field combats where there is no front line, and sneaks getting behind the party's front line, the martials shouldn't suffer any more (or any less) than anyone else.

But if the DM only ever attacks the front-liners and never gets the back-liners' uniforms dirty, then yes; the tanks would get even more hosed than is already the case in such a game.

* - on average. Any individual battle could, of course, easily see one or two characters in grave danger while the others never take a scratch; be it due to luck of the draw, good (or bad!) planning, or the in-game situation at the time.

So here is where I need to remind you that some DM's aren't that experienced, they select monsters out of the book without making sure there is a mix of threats, or they use published adventures, which don't often mix up threats like that either.

While an experienced DM might be able to ensure that death spiral mechanics threaten everyone equally, that's not going to happen at many tables, especially in public play.

So any such mechanics would have to be optional, as many groups aren't going to realize the ramifications until everyone stops playing melee characters entirely...or stop using them...or switch to some other game.

And since that would effect WotC's bottom line, well, you can see how that would go.