D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Lanefan]

I prefer the looser casting rules because they allow the narrative to be more flexible. Going back to the counterspell example, having one player able to counter another's counter is fun,

That's where we differ, I guess: that sort of thing is fun in a game such as Magic that's designed around being a capital-G Game first, but it's not nearly as much fun in D&D largely because a) it's a pain in the butt to referee and-or run and b) it doesn't make temporal sense in the fiction.

and allowing casting times to be flexible (which to me is more logical anyway, but that's besides the point) permits the story to keep moving and make sense. For me, story always comes ahead of mechanics, so my priority is maintaining a narrative that is fun and makes sense, and if the mechanics are interfering with that, then they gotta give.

Silly thing is, we very much agree on most of this. Only to me, having fixed casting times helps that process of keeping things moving as both I and the players know what to expect and thus don't have to fuss with it.

I tend to hand wave a lot of stuff at my table. Like, if a player wants to try something that is outside RAW but seems like an awesome idea that will take the story in a fun direction, I am inclined to go with it and see what happens. Instead of "that's not really how charm person works, sorry," I'll probably say, "huh - that's creative. Let's see what happens!" Within reason.

Agreed again, though I'm a bit cautious here in that allowing something creative this time sets a precedent that makes that same trick allowable every time henceforth, and some spells can slowly get kinda broken once enough of these creative-use precedents accumulate. Rope Trick is an example of such in my game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Or we can design rules that support consistent in-fiction logic rather than shred it.

The rules serve the fiction. If the fiction has to twist itself in order to accommodate the rules, something's gone wrong somewhere.

No, the rules serve whatever purpose we want. Sometimes that may serve the fiction, other times it may serve some game element.

The fiction is made up. It’s whatever we want it to be.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's where we differ, I guess: that sort of thing is fun in a game such as Magic that's designed around being a capital-G Game first, but it's not nearly as much fun in D&D largely because a) it's a pain in the butt to referee and-or run and b) it doesn't make temporal sense in the fiction.

Silly thing is, we very much agree on most of this. Only to me, having fixed casting times helps that process of keeping things moving as both I and the players know what to expect and thus don't have to fuss with it.

Agreed again, though I'm a bit cautious here in that allowing something creative this time sets a precedent that makes that same trick allowable every time henceforth, and some spells can slowly get kinda broken once enough of these creative-use precedents accumulate. Rope Trick is an example of such in my game.

For what it's worth, I don't care about initiative beats as they once existed long ago but the playloop is spelled out on two pages in the PHB (pages 6 &181) so it takes a special kind of design failure to open the door for step3 "muh gloves" retcons with a bunch of step3 retcon reaction abilities that encourage players to sit like lumps waiting to be mugged by story.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, the rules serve whatever purpose we want. Sometimes that may serve the fiction, other times it may serve some game element.

The fiction is made up. It’s whatever we want it to be.

The rules are also whatever we want them to be.

 

[aco175]

I hope we do not bring back casting times and weapon speed. Although I would like to see all the "casters suck" threads and how to boost them to count for casting times and concentration checks to avoid losing the spell.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The rules are also whatever we want them to be.

Sure. I mean, most of them start out with some amount of definition, but we can change them to suit if we like.

My point was just that something that may seem inconsistent to someone need not be so to others. I'm not even a big fan of counterspell, but I don't insist that it must only work per my narrow view of how it does.

 

[Lanefan]

I hope we do not bring back casting times and weapon speed.

I've never bothered with weapon speed but casting times and interruptability were (and remain) a great way to tamp down casters a bit while at the same time not overly nerfing their spells.

Although I would like to see all the "casters suck" threads and how to boost them to count for casting times and concentration checks to avoid losing the spell.

Casters suck threads? Not sure I've yet seen one of those.

Martials suck threads, on the other hand, there's been lots of.

 

[Maxperson]

No, the rules serve whatever purpose we want. Sometimes that may serve the fiction, other times it may serve some game element.

The fiction is made up. It’s whatever we want it to be.

You are correct. For me, I want the fiction to be coherent. If the fiction has to twist itself to fit the rules, there's a break in the coherence.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You are correct. For me, I want the fiction to be coherent. If the fiction has to twist itself to fit the rules, there's a break in the coherence.

This implies that those who view it differently don’t care about coherence. Which isn't necessarily the case.

 

[Clint_L]

This implies that those who view it differently don’t care about coherence. Which isn't necessarily the case.

Exactly - for me, nothing is more jarring than something that has to happen in the story because "the rules say so" rather than because it makes sense. Most of the time, though, the rules and the story work just fine together. On the rare occasion where there is a conflict, I always but the coherence of the story first, rules be damned. I think Lanefan and I are arguing the same point on this - we just disagree about whether one particular rule makes sense or not, which is pretty small potatoes.