D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Micah Sweet]

I've done a lot of consideration on the topic; my personal opinion is that D&D-milieu games would be improved if "classes" were all explicitly diegetic elements with an obvious layer of supernatural capability.

Even a "Fighter" should have a level of supernatural capability and resilience that is obvious within the fiction.

Why? Serious question.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It doesn't = mundane, either. I'm okay with it not being explicitly called magic, but it really needs to be called out as supernatural. Not mundane. Not extraordinary, which is still mundane.

But the clear issue that keeps coming up here is that D&D has a very limited idea of what magic is and no concept anymore of any other fantastic elements. That's why martials keep getting denied fantastic elements; because every discrete ability must be a spell for some very dumb reason.

 

[TwoSix]

Why? Serious question.

I would say that as a general principle in medium-heavy crunch games, that every layer of game mechanics should correspond to a layer of diegetic elements that are roughly analogous to each other.

That's why I think most people prefer race AND class as opposed to race-AS-class, as an example. Biological origin is a different diegetic concept than the skillset/identity/vocation of class, and people prefer that to have different mechanics. (Since I know you're aware of them, ACKS racial classes I would classify as "race AND class with restrictions".)

Most of the familiar D&D classes represent a chosen vocation and observable skill set with some kind of supernatural backing; it's generally obvious within the fiction for standard D&D settings if someone is a "cleric" or a "wizard" or even a "bard". The only classes that break that paradigm are fighter, rogue, and possibly barbarian and ranger depending on how you view their identity. I'd rather simply see any class that is a "class" be as recognizable as "druid" or "wizard" is.

The game is about characters with classes; mundanes who don't have classes are simply NPCs who might grow and become more skilled, but they don't "level" like a classed individual does.

 

[Maxperson]

But the clear issue that keeps coming up here is that D&D has a very limited idea of what magic is and no concept anymore of any other fantastic elements. That's why martials keep getting denied fantastic elements; because every discrete ability must be a spell for some very dumb reason.

3e had the concepts of extraordinary, supernatural, and magical abilities. So I disagree that the d&d had such a limited idea about magic. 5e doesn't have that concept in the game yet, but it could be added quite easily.

 

[Vaalingrade]

3e had the concepts of extraordinary, supernatural, and magical abilities.

That'd be why I said 'no concept anymore'.

3e recognized non-magical fantasy.

4e actively denoted martial as a power source.

5e gave up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would say that as a general principle in medium-heavy crunch games, that every layer of game mechanics should correspond to a layer of diegetic elements that are roughly analogous to each other.

That's why I think most people prefer race AND class as opposed to race-AS-class, as an example. Biological origin is a different diegetic concept than the skillset/identity/vocation of class, and people prefer that to have different mechanics. (Since I know you're aware of them, ACKS racial classes I would classify as "race AND class with restrictions".)

Most of the familiar D&D classes represent a chosen vocation and observable skill set with some kind of supernatural backing; it's generally obvious within the fiction for standard D&D settings if someone is a "cleric" or a "wizard" or even a "bard". The only classes that break that paradigm are fighter, rogue, and possibly barbarian and ranger depending on how you view their identity. I'd rather simply see any class that is a "class" be as recognizable as "druid" or "wizard" is.

The game is about characters with classes; mundanes who don't have classes are simply NPCs who might grow and become more skilled, but they don't "level" like a classed individual does.

I think classes can be recognizable just fine without a built-in supernatural element. Level Up has five non-supernatural (by default) classes in the corebook (adept, fighter, marshal, ranger, rogue) and three more in the sci-fi book (scientist, scout, trooper). They all feel pretty recognizable to me.

 

[Oofta]

3e had the concepts of extraordinary, supernatural, and magical abilities. So I disagree that the d&d had such a limited idea about magic. 5e doesn't have that concept in the game yet, but it could be added quite easily.

I would say that they do have those concepts, they just don't call them out because it doesn't really matter. Monks and barbarians are obviously (well, to me anyway) supernatural. A fighter that can second wind and action surge is extraordinary. The only people that really care about the labels are grognards, and that's not the target audience any more.

 

[TwoSix]

I think classes can be recognizable just fine without a built-in supernatural element. Level Up has five non-supernatural (by default) classes in the corebook (adept, fighter, marshal, ranger, rogue) and three more in the sci-fi book (scientist, scout, trooper). They all feel pretty recognizable to me.

But are they recognizable as such within the fiction? Can a random NPC identify someone as a "fighter" like they can identify someone as a "wizard"? Is there something uniquely "fighterly" that makes a fighter recognizable as an identity distinct from a random town guard?

 

[pemerton]

I've played Rolemaster and as detailed as it is, it's not trying to mirror reality.

It's trying to come pretty close!

Realism is a spectrum, and not just one spectrum.

I take it that by "is a spectrum" you mean "is a matter of degree".

In which case, yes, realism is a matter of degree. When it comes to D&D, basically, the more significant some thing is as the object of attention at the table, the less likely it is to be realistic. I mean, that's a generalisation, probably an over-generalisation, but not a gross over-generalisation.

In this respect D&D resembles other pulp-y or "B" adventure fiction.

(Just one example: how often do shoes - mundane shoes, that keep one's feet a bit clean and a bit uninjured - come up in D&D play? Rarely, in my experience.)

That it's not realistic for the group to keep being confronted by monsters, dramatic events and opportunities, has nothing to do with whether or not some other aspect of the game should be more realistic in someone's opinion.

But it does have something to do with assertions that departures from realism are at odds with the spirit of the game.

Not to mention that claims about "realism" are often made about mechanics - which doesn't even make sense! - rather than about the fiction, which is the thing that actually exhibits a lesser or greater degree of realism.

(By analogy, some novels tell more realistic stories than others; but there are not more and less realistic ways of writing novels. Just as with a RPG, realism is a property of the fiction, not a property of the method of authorship.)

 

[pemerton]

I do think the RPGs are at their best when you can be just almost fully in actor stance, just go really method and just be the character. LARPs are the best for this, but you can do really good stuff with tabletop too.

I assert that - in D&D play - the incidence of actor-stance decisions about whether or not a character is so shaken by violence or its threat, that they break down or flee, is vanishingly slight.

The incidence of actor-stance decisions about whether or not to follow the GM's plot hook may be a bit greater, but I reckon those are pretty rare too.

When I read discussions of play, advice to GMs and players, etc - in the D&D context - it overwhelmingly presents author-stance as the default: the ideal, often presented in very forthright normative terms, is for players to make decisions that will fit within or advance "the adventure", and should imagine their PCs being so motivated.

"It's what my character would do" is a phrase used almost exclusively to admonish "bad" play, not to praise play.