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

[pemerton]

I'm responding to the argument (mostly from @pemerton ) that, because mirroring reality isn't completely possible, then the entire concept should be abandoned

Please don't impute views and arguments to me that I've not put forth.

Especially in this context, where - as I already posted - I have far more experience playing RM, RQ and like systems than you do. In play D&D (in some or other version) you are the one giving up on reality, not me.

perhaps in favor of Pemerton's preferred narrative approach?

I'm confident that the fiction in my "narrative approach" RPGing that uses Burning Wheel, Torchbearer 2e, Prince Valiant and Classic Traveller is more realistic than the fiction in your D&D games.

I am also confident that the fiction in my "narrative approach" 4e D&D play is as realistic as that in your D&D game. The fiction in my fantasy-variant MHRP too - it may even be more realistic.

And that's all before we start talking about hundreds of hours of Rolemaster play.

 

[pemerton]

This makes no sense at all. You're just making objections based on nothing. Rage is a thing the barbarian can decide to evoke; they do so. It's not that difficult.

I don't think evoking rage (to a limit of N times per day) is more realistic, or more versimilitudinous, than having (or lacking) the will to live.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I think that for your standard milieu "D&D-play" (assuming a group of 4-5 characters with loose ties investigating unfamiliar sites of danger and complication), actor-stance play is generally assumed as "virtuous" or "skilled" with some heavy caveats.

Those caveats revolving around the fact that the player is one among many, and making decisions "as a character" that impact party cohesion or the progress of the exploration negates any "virtue" found within the actor stance play. This can be ameliorated by deciding prior to play to not play a "lone wolf", or a character who would make active choices to disrupt party cohesion.

 

[payn]

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.

This. D&D is not like Fiasco where you are narrating out a story that can allow folks to explore the bounds of the game without causing discord. The group is expected to work together for at least a certain period of time under a heavy mechanical system. Which is why often the "its what my character would do" is met with a chorus of "that PC is out of the party because its what our characters would do."

ninja'd by @TwoSix

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Perhaps. I think it is pretty rare in any game. Still happens. Now how common this particular actor stance decision is, will certainly be influenced by the genre; people tend not to create terribly risk averse character for the action adventure game.

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.

So? I was not saying that this is how everyone plays D&D, merely that it can be played in this way (as can many other games) and I prefer to do so. Some games get more on the way of this, some less. There are some things in D&D that are disruptive for this approach, but there definitely are games that are much more so.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think evoking rage (to a limit of N times per day) is more realistic, or more versimilitudinous, than having (or lacking) the will to live.

OK. It was really not about realism though, it was about being meta or not.

 

[CreamCloud0]

To do supernatural things? Yes. Martials don't typically get to the point where they would be doing supernatural things until mid to high levels, though. And I have no problem with them training martially to the point where they exceed natural limitations, but once they do exceed natural limitations, they are in the supernatural realm.

Think of Zoro in One Piece who trains martially until he can swing his sword and cut things in half from 100 or more yards away. Or the samurai in One Piece who can cut any fire, even dragon fire, in half with his sword. Those are magical acts achieved through martial training.

im a bit behind so im not recognising the samurai character you're referencing but in-universe, which for this argument is the only position that matters IMO, zoro's sword abilities are not presented as any kind of supernatural, extraordinary perhaps, in the same way IRL that olympic athletes' feats are extraordinary, but not supernatural, people can just DO THAT in the world of one peice with no magic or special powers if they put in enough effort, zoro isn't using some special sauce to pull off his techniques except a hell of alot of weight training.

i'm very tired of this coming up every time this topic is broached, extraordinary martial techniques getting 'no true scotsman'ed' out of actually being considered TRUE martial techniques because they've become impressive enough that people decide 'well those can't be martial techniques just look at what they're doing' so they instead get assigned as 'it's not magic but no wait actually we are functionally considering it magic afterall with just a different name' '''supernatural'''

 

[Crimson Longinus]

im a bit behind so im not recognising the samurai character you're referencing but in-universe, which for this argument is the only position that matters IMO, zoro's sword abilities are not presented as any kind of supernatural, extraordinary perhaps, in the same way IRL that olympic athletes' feats are extraordinary, but not supernatural, people can just DO THAT in the world of one peice with no magic or special powers if they put in enough effort, zoro isn't using some special sauce to pull off his techniques except a hell of alot of training.

i'm very tired of this coming up every time this topic is broached, extraordinary martial techniques getting 'no true scotsman'ed' out of actually being considered TRUE martial techniques because they've become impressive enough that people decide 'well those can't be martial techniques just look at what they're doing' so they instead get assigned as 'it's not magic but no wait actually we are functionally considering it magic afterall with just a different name' '''supernatural'''

I just do not get why the labelling even matters. It is just pointless semantics.

Personally I want high level martials to be able to do mythical, wuxia stuff, and I don't need explanation for that beyond "this is fantasy world, and legendary heroes in it can just learn to do these things." That being said, 3e style labelling of such abilities as "extraordinary" or "supernatural" wouldn't really bother me, I just don't see the need for it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

I think so (technique and breath of proficiency for two), but let's turn that around. Is there something uniquely "warlocky" that makes a warlock recognizable as an identity distinct from a random spellcaster?

 

[TwoSix]

I think so (technique and breath of proficiency for two), but let's turn that around. Is there something uniquely "warlocky" that makes a warlock recognizable as an identity distinct from a random spellcaster?

If there isn't, there should be. Obviously the diegetic element of the pact should play a big role here, as well as unique spells like Eldritch Blast. The bulk of Wyll's arc in BG3 is dependent on his identity as a warlock, as an example.