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

[pemerton]

I think most people would generally think of all of these characters as decently high level characters in D&D terms and not as low level characters.

But that's where we get into the satisfactory game play aspect of things. If the mechanical device used for expressing these characters' puissance is very high bonuses, so that they basically never fail/lose, we might get passable emulation, but a boring time at the table.

 

[MichaelSomething]

In part that's a chicken-and-egg situation: most players are not among those who like survival-style games (or west marches play, or "rogue-like" play) because most players who started with 4e-5e haven't really been exposed to such and thus haven't had a chance to determine whether they in fact like it or not.

And before anyone says "But, DCCRPG...", I'll point out that DCCRPG and its cohorts are barely a blip on the radar of mainstream play.

So you're saying we all need to work together to market DCC to wider audiences?

Do we have any volunteers to make DCC Tiktoks?

 

[Lanefan]

... the diegetic element ...

Apropos of nothing, and not to pick on you specifically, but every time I see the word "diegetic" I have to remind myself it doesn't refer to some very unpleasant digestive problem....

 

[Vaalingrade]

Boromir was numenorean, or at least had an almost pure numenorean bloodline. The high men of numenor were not high men for nothing.

We never see Boromir partake. the only High Man we see in LotR is Gandalf.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes. (Except I would have called it "colour".)

And to me this gets to the heart of it: I'm in actor stance when decisions are low- or no-stakes; but I move to author stance as soon as things start to really matter; isn't - for me - play that demonstrates a commitment to actor stance only.

Following on from what I've just posted in reply to @TwoSix:

It's not just reasons to stay together, although those are often so thin that taking it seriously as actor stance rather than author stance with a pretty light veneer of retroactive motivation.

It's the players understanding the whole structure of "plot hook", "adventure", "quest giver", "main quest", "side quest", etc - stuff that is manifestly not part of the fiction itself and not part of the way any person in the fiction would think - and then declaring actions on that basis while also inventing reasons why their PCs would make those decisions.

This is just some weird caricature or strawman that I do not recognise, so I really do not know how to respond.

 

[cbwjm]

Apropos of nothing, and not to pick on you specifically, but every time I see the word "diegetic" I have to remind myself it doesn't refer to some very unpleasant digestive problem....

I tend to think it has something to do with one's diet.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

My preference is for uncertainty. But also satisfactory play. It's fairly straightforward to get that for a Conan-esque or Batman-esque character. Just not using traditional D&D mechanics - unless you give them spells, which is a bit weird for these ostensibly non-wizardly characters.

I can see the argument for Batman, as he often is ludicrously plot powered Mary Sue, but not really for Conan, unless we go on the level of some really nit-picky details.

 

[Maxperson]

We never see Boromir partake. the only High Man we see in LotR is Gandalf.

Gandalf isn't a high man at all. He's maiar or an angel. Aragorn is a high man as a dunedain(numenorean). Boromir, Faramir and Denethor are also high men as direct descendants of the Steward of Gondor. They just weren't in the line of succession to be king.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Gandalf isn't a high man at all. He's maiar or an angel. Aragorn is a high man as a dunedain(numenorean). Boromir, Faramir and Denethor are also high men as direct descendants of the Steward of Gondor. They just weren't in the line of succession to be king.

That...

that was a joke.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, though I don't like those existing (apart revivify, which is more like instant battlefield CPR.) I want death to be rare, but if it happens, I want it to actually mean something, I want the survivors be able to process it as a real loss and move on. The revolving door these resurrection methods create is terrible for drama, they make the death not a real death, merely a temporary inconvenience.

What 5e (sadly) lacks is the mechanical short- and long-term consequences of death that 1e-2e had: short-term being the resurrection survival roll to see if a revival attempt succeeded and long-term being the loss of a Con point.