D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[pemerton]

Actually, we all get to have and share our opinions about whether something is supernatural or not.

Hang on, so does that mean it's a reasonable criticism of D&D that it allows humans to generate energy from their fingertips completely unrealistically - after all, I've decided (quite reasonably) that there's no such thing as magic, and hence Magic Missile must be describing some process of the sort that physicists study?

Now if one wants to grant a player the ability to declare their PC taunts an enemy to physically approach and attack and so long as the enemy fails a wisdom save they do so. That’s a player ability - not a PC ability - and it’s not in fiction supernatural - it’s outside fiction authorial.

There’s a tendency in more narrative games to hide narrative/authorial mechanics on the PC sheet and talk about them as if they are PC abilities, but this kind of analysis reveals the truth - while such abilities are loosely tied to something the PC does - their actual purpose is to grant the player authorial/narrative control and not to simply have the PC try to do something in the fiction.

What is this difference between a PC ability and a player ability? Where does the D&D rulebook explain what it is.

Here's Gygax on saving throw - so pretty core to the D&D tradition, I'd say (AD&D DMG pp 80-81):

Someone once sharply criticized the concept of the saving throw as ridiculous. Could a man chained to a rock, they asked, save himself from the blast of a red dragon's breath? Why not?, I replied. If you accept fire-breathing dragons, why doubt the chance to reduce the damage sustained from such a creature's attack? Imagine that the figure, at the last moment, of course, manages to drop beneath the licking flames, or finds a crevice in which to shield his or her body, or succeeds in finding a way to be free of the fetters. Why not? The mechanics of combat or the details of the injury caused by some horrible weapon are not the key to heroic fantasy and adventure games. It is the character, how he or she becomes involved in the combat, how he or she somehow escapes - or fails to escape - the mortal threat which is important to the enjoyment and longevity of the game.​

Is he describing a PC ability or a player ability?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Basically as the other poster suggests, that acknowledging it’s a game so designing it like a game some seem to object to. Vehemently. Arguments about realism and verisimilitude, etc. We can’t have fighters with cool stuff because that’s “not realistic” while the wizard is casting fireballs and has a wish in their back pocket for later. It’s not limited to that. But that’s the one that comes to mind right now.

Scratch the surface of any "realism" argument and you'll usually find something else at work, something more about gameplay.

Fighters that run out of martial juice just isn't a fun way to play a "fighter" for a lot of people. It doesn't match the fantasy of the class, it doesn't match the story told about why fighters are amazing, it homogenizes gameplay and makes class differences less relevant, it weights character builds over treasure acquisition, blah blah blah.

You're right to be skeptical of arguments about "realism" - usually saying something isn't "realistic" is equivalent to saying it's "bad" or "underpowered" or whatever. It's not really getting at the true friction point. But it gives some directionality. People who complain about "realism" often are concerned with the story they're trying to emulate with the class, and about how the mechanics of limited-use powers butts up against that story. If D&D is at its core a storytelling game (and 5e really carries that banner), the needs of the narrative must be served by the game. If it breaks the story, it won't be a good fit. By "it's not realistic," they often mean "it's not a good fit for the idea I have in my head about it, which means it's not a fun element for me as a player in this game."

 

[Gammadoodler]

Honest talk here.

Any game balance mechanic will sometimes make demands on setting issues. That's why some people hate them. They're a tradeoff, and one some people are not willing to make (and other people don't care about at all).

Its just I'm not sold that most people don't do it all the time in an ad-hoc and possibly unconscious way, because if that wasn't done too many games would probably turn into a TPK or equivalent more often than I suspect most people want to deal with, gritty or not.

(This is excluding the people who simply fudge their way around it regularly).

Sure. And to be clear, it's not an element I put a lot of energy into rationalizing, personally. I understand when I come to the table that I'm there to enjoy fantasy adventures with friends through the mechanism of a game.

These particular elements are (in my experience at least) neither subtle, nor particularly well justified narratively. So while I am able to look past them, it does require a bit of conscious effort I wouldn't have to expend otherwise.

I'm willing to invest this effort when it comes up because I find the the other gameplay elements very rewarding, but I can see how others would not.

 

[Cadence]

I don't think this is a defensible position. In fact I think there ARE games which are pretty much open ended. For example, Magic: the Gathering. There is not even a possibility of constructing a canonical description of all possible play. You can't even characterize play with a few generalizations. Yet there is no necessity, and little tendency, to construct a narrative in play.

Our EDH group continually banters back and forth with horrible insul... Wait! Are you saying the others actually mean them in real life!?!?!

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am not using a VTT, just a very colorful multi-page character sheet full of widgets i was assured I needed to keep with the expected encounters and the rest of the party.

I suspect that statement is true for certain very busy characters, but as someone who has played through three full PF2e campaigns, let's just say I could have run off the first few levels with a single page character sheet, and this was a multiclass character in one case.

 

[Cadence]

Ok, so I've lost a thread (mental, not ENWorld one) somewhere.

I know why group A doesn't want super-buffed fighters unless they're supernatural somehow.

And I know that group B wants fighters to be just as gonzo as the wizards.

I've forgotten why either group cares if there is no decent mundane fighter option, and all the good ones are supernatural somehow.

Anyone care to say if they are A or B and if they hate the balanced-with-wizards /gonzo fighters needing to pick a power source like demi-god, ancient mystic heritage, secret inner power source, dipped in Styx, blessed by the gods, etc ..?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yet you prefer to play D&D. I'm guessing its because the play experience of games like Aftermath (which IIRC is quite realistic) kinda suck. People don't want to RP normal humans! At least most of the time.

Aftermath is, in some respects, not all that realistic, and I just want to (pro-forma) note your characterization of it does not fit my experience. I thought it was a pretty fine game given what it was trying to cover.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yet you prefer to play D&D. I'm guessing its because the play experience of games like Aftermath (which IIRC is quite realistic) kinda suck. People don't want to RP normal humans! At least most of the time.

Not really. It's because my players prefer to play 5e and they (particularly my wife) hate TSR editions of the game and anything based on them. I do what I have to do.

Never heard of Aftermath, but based on you saying it sucks I'm intrigued. Link?

 

[FrogReaver]

Hang on, so does that mean it's a reasonable criticism of D&D that it allows humans to generate energy from their fingertips completely unrealistically

Yes.

- after all, I've decided (quite reasonably) that there's no such thing as magic, and hence Magic Missile must be describing some process of the sort that physicists study?

If that’s the reasoning then I’d say no.

What is this difference between a PC ability and a player ability?

I just explained that.

Where does the D&D rulebook explain what it is.

It doesn’t.

Here's Gygax on saving throw - so pretty core to the D&D tradition, I'd say (AD&D DMG pp 80-81):

Someone once sharply criticized the concept of the saving throw as ridiculous. Could a man chained to a rock, they asked, save himself from the blast of a red dragon's breath? Why not?, I replied. If you accept fire-breathing dragons, why doubt the chance to reduce the damage sustained from such a creature's attack? Imagine that the figure, at the last moment, of course, manages to drop beneath the licking flames, or finds a crevice in which to shield his or her body, or succeeds in finding a way to be free of the fetters. Why not? The mechanics of combat or the details of the injury caused by some horrible weapon are not the key to heroic fantasy and adventure games. It is the character, how he or she becomes involved in the combat, how he or she somehow escapes - or fails to escape - the mortal threat which is important to the enjoyment and longevity of the game.​

Is he describing a PC ability or a player ability?

Todays 5e D&D does treat that concept as ridiculous. A restrained/speed 0 creature automatically fails Dex saves.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honest talk here.

Any game balance mechanic will sometimes make demands on setting issues. That's why some people hate them. They're a tradeoff, and one some people are not willing to make (and other people don't care about at all).

Its just I'm not sold that most people don't do it all the time in an ad-hoc and possibly unconscious way, because if that wasn't done too many games would probably turn into a TPK or equivalent more often than I suspect most people want to deal with, gritty or not.

(This is excluding the people who simply fudge their way around it regularly).

Ad hoc and unconscious is better than codified and assumed in this case.