D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[TwoSix]

Not pointing this out to disagree with your preference, but there are now multiple fantasy genres that go in the opposite direction. And they have some very very good stories and incredibly interesting fantasies that lean on the concept that stats, scores, and ect are real, tangible things that the characters are fully aware of.

Just as a top of my head example, there is a story about a "Demonic" Tree in a Chinese setting who is the main character and growing their power to deal with various threats to themselves and the only person they have in the world. I don't see how that story could WORK with a sentient but unmoving tree, if they didn't have the system to pull on to give concrete points of progress for the story to use as milestone markers.

I’ve read lots and lots of LitRPGs, don’t worry.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But you can't "get a glimpse of how that would feel", except metaphorically. Because you're not peering through a window. You're imagining.

Some people's imagination is accurate. Some is not. There are some things where, for most people, imagination is probably not all that reliable.

Here's some examples, pertinent to adventure-oriented RPGing: how would I react if I had the chance to rush into a burning house and save someone? or if I had the chance to throw myself in front of a gunman to protect a loved one? By chance, stories of this sort have features on our national news recently (well, I'm in Australia so no gunmen, but there was a kindergarten teacher who died saving kids from a truck crashing into the kindergarten). Two people did heroic things. But obviously there are times when people don't do heroic things. Which sort of person am I? What would the experience and the choice be like?

I can imagine, but I can't "glimpse" it just by introspecting and drawing on my knowledge of Spider-Man comics.

I'm not sure if this is again some semantic hang-up, or do you genuinely think that empathy and method acting are not real.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Here's what you posted that I replied to: "I want the rules to be aligned with the fiction, is because then I can only think about the fiction, and the rules will follow. But if you disassociate them, then you end up thinking about the rules more"

It's an empirical conjecture, about the way some mental and physical processes work, and about the nature of rules.

Suppose the GM describes a wall. Then the player decides, and declares, that their character climbs the wall. Now, how is that resolved? Suppose that they first ask the GM - "Can I climb the wall?" And then the GM asks what their Climbing rating is. And then the player looks up a number on their PC sheet, and tells the GM. And then the GM tells them to make a roll, and the player rolls a die and then does some arithmetic. And then tells the GM. And then the GM consults a chart or table or other reference, and tells the player what happens next in the fiction.

What I've just described could happen in AD&D (using thief abilities), in more modern D&D, in Rolemaster, in RuneQuest.

This seems needlessly cumbersome.

Here's an alternative: the GM describes features of the situation, including "Sheer Cliffs d10". The player decides that their PC wants to climb the wall, reviews their PC sheet, and sees their rating Climbing d10. And so the player says to the GM, "I've got Climbing d10, so I'm spending a Plot Point to climb the cliffs". And the GM responds "OK", and then goes on to tell the player what happens next in the fiction.

What I've just described is based on Marvel Heroic RP, but something similar might happen in other RPGs.

The latter approach would be classified as "disassociated" by you and @Emirikol, as best I can tell. But (i) it doesn't require the player to do anything but play their PC, and (ii) it is more quickly resolved, with less reference to the rules, than the more "simulationist" example.

Yes it does. It requires them to make decision about the use of meta resource, existence of which the character is not aware of, thus could not make that decision.

I've played a lot of Rolemaster,

My deepest condolences.

which is a very simulationist RPG. And it's not a game in which only a little bit of time is spend thinking about the rules and rules elements.

Because it is an infuriatingly cumbersome and unnecessarily complicated game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because you're a person embedded in your body living a life.

Your PC is an imaginary being you are authoring.

And I am portraying that imaginary person as realistically (for the setting) as I can. There's no reason they need to think in terms of their story any more than I do in real life.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, that tracks. You're right in that I don't care much about a 1-to-1 alignment between rule element and narration; indeed, I prefer their separation because I enjoy the act of framing the rule into a coherent narrative. Reskinning is ultimately one of my favorite things to do in a roleplaying game.

Yeah, that's a big difference right there. I hate reskinning, and avoid it whenever possible. I'd much rather have a diagetic mechanic to model the situation.

 

[TwoSix]

Again, how?

In character the mage sits down in the morning and memorizes two Magic Missiles, one Grease, one Hold Person and one Web. She knows that's what she memorized because she sat there this morning with her spellbook and did the studying.

Which means in character the mage knows that today she's already cast her Web and her Grease in prior encounters, thus when asked what she has left her saying "Two Missiles and a Hold Person" has nothng munchkin about it - she's speaking in character and saying exactly what the character would say.

I'm going to second or third what others have said, how it acknowledging them munchkinism?... The original inspiration for Vancian casting/prep was literally a series of books.

To clarify, in case it wasn't clear from my previous post; I'm discussing the attitudes of teenage me in the 1990s, not me now.

Basically, I read a LOT of fantasy and game fiction well before I actually started playing D&D. And game fiction, not in the '80s and early '90s, never used game terms in the story. Raistlin never mentioned having 2 1st level slots left. Heck, they hardly ever used exact spell names.

So I internalized that what we did in the game should look like the books, and that actually mentioning the mechanics in the gameworld was fairly gauche. And since most of the people I played with in high school were my friends who learned to play from my fumblings, I never really saw other ways to play till much later. And going to college in the '90s, I was immersed in a gaming culture that said the story came first, and that focusing on mechanics was faintly embarrassing. So pretty much everyone used pretty similar narrations.

 

[James Gasik]

I was reading Zelazny when I got into D&D, and Sorcery in the Amber setting used something very similar to spell slots, where you had to "pre-cast" spells in advance to use them later, so I never had a problem with preparing spells- it was the whole "memorization/magically forgetting" spells in your mind that I felt was silly.

 

[Pedantic]

Sure. I'm just saying for 1990s me, such behavior would have definitely gotten you labeled as "munchkin" and not invited back. The fiction always came first. If the rules didn't match what the fiction should be, then you bend the rules or make some new ones. And having the characters be aware of any sort of game mechanics was not the correct approach to the fiction (again, 1990s me).

I think we talked about it elsewhere, but I feel like there's daylight between "change the rules to produce the desired fiction" and "create fiction/make decisions with intentional disregard of the rules." I'm distrustful of any system that punishes people for trying to understand or use it; if there's a conflict in the rules/fiction, you're either agreeing with everyone present to accept some level of cognitive dissonance (compounding with the base level already necessary to do an imaginative activity) or you're obligated to change one or the other.

Even now, with almost 30 years of adding new mental approaches to RPGing to my skillset, mapping "one mechanic -> exactly one narration" is still one of my least favorites. I can do it for more restricted games (Dolmenwood is an example of that type of play that I'm planning on trying), but it doesn't work for me in the toolbox that is D&D.

I think there's some room for flexibility here, so long as some significant parameters are respected; I think the most important is bounding mechanics in time and with forward causality.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure if this is again some semantic hang-up, or do you genuinely think that empathy and method acting are not real.

Method-acting, at least as I understand it, involves remembering an actual experience and using that to establish the relevant emotion. So it's not a way of getting a glimpse into how something unknown would feel. It's kind-of the opposite.

 

[pemerton]

And I am portraying that imaginary person as realistically (for the setting) as I can. There's no reason they need to think in terms of their story any more than I do in real life.

But all "realism" means here is "as you would imagine they might act".

If I decide that they would act differently, that's not a reduction in realism.

The last time I played my PC Thurgon in Burning Wheel, I (as Thurgon) returned to my ancestral homeland, Auxol. As part of PC build, I had paid for a loving relationship with my mother Xanthippe. Therefore, as per the rules of the game, when I told the GM that I go to visit my mother (whom, as per my backstory, I had not seen for 5 years), the GM said yes: unless the fiction clearly precludes it, a PC is always able to meet someone with whom they have a loving relationship.

Here's how it unfolded, as per my actual play report written at the time:

My PC is Thurgon, a warrior cleric type (heavy armour, Faithful to the Lord of Battle, Last Knight of the Iron Tower, etc). His companion is Aramina, a sorcerer. His ancestral estate, which he has not visited for 5 years, is Auxol.

At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!; Aramina will need my protection - and three Instincts - When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle; If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself; When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning.

<snip>

The characters continued on, and soon arrived at Auxol,. The GM narrated the estate still being worked, but looking somewhat run-down compared to Thrugon's memories of it. An old, bowed woman greeted us - Xanthippe, looking much more than her 61 years. She welcomed Thurgon back, but chided him for having been away. And asked him not to leave again. The GM was getting ready to force a Duel of Wits on the point - ie that Thurgon should not leave again - when I tried a different approach. I'd already made a point of Thurgon having his arms on clear display as he rode through the countryside and the estate; now he raised his mace and shield to the heavens, and called on the Lord of Battle to bring strength back to his mother so that Auxol might be restored to its former greatness. This was a prayer for a Minor Miracle, obstacle 5. Thurgon has Faith 5 and I burned his last point of Persona to take it to 6 dice (the significance of this being that, without 1 Persona, you can't stop the effect of a mortal wound should one be suffered). With 6s being open-ended (ie auto-rolls), the expected success rate is 3/5, so that's 3.6 successes there. And I had a Fate point to reroll one failure, for an overall expected 4-ish successes. Against an obstacle of 5.

As it turned out, I finished up with 7 successes. So a beam of light shot down from the sky, and Xanthippe straightened up and greeted Thurgon again, but this time with vigour and readiness to restore Auxol. The GM accepted my proposition that this played out Thurgon's Belief that Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more! (earning a Persona point). His new Belief is Xanthippe and I will liberate Auxol. He picked up a second Persona point for Embodiment ("Your roleplay (a performance or a decision) captures the mood of the table and drives the story onward").

Turning back to Aramina, I decided that this made an impact on her too: up until now she had been cynical and slightly bitter, but now she was genuinely inspired and determined: instead of never meeting the gaze of a stranger, her Instinct is to look strangers in the eyes and Assess. And rather than I don't need Thurgon's pity, her Belief is Thurgon and I will liberate Auxol. This earned a Persona point for Mouldbreaker ("If a situation brings your Beliefs, Instincts and Traits into conflict with a decision your PC must make, you play out your inner turmoil as you dramatically play against a Belief in a believable and engaging manner").

What is it "realistic" for Thurgon to do, when his mother chides him for having been away, and asks him not to leave again? Thurgon is a knight-errant of a holy order, so that is a big ask. But equally, he loves his mother, and is devoted to his ancestral heritage (as revealed by his Relationships and Beliefs).

And would he, realistically, make this a matter of his faith? Especially as his Belief is that The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory. I, the player, know that even if Thurgon gives it his all - by spending his last point of Persona - the odds of success are slim. Corresponding to that, Thurgon knows that his faith may not be strong enough for the Lord of Battle to answer his prayer.

I don't believe that there is anything that is knowable here. The real question is "How do I imagine Thurgon acting here?" What makes sense, given the feel of things - things in the fiction, and things at the (virtual) table - at that moment of play? It's not a prediction - neither a prediction of what Thurgon "would" do, nor a prediction of what will make for a "good story". It's a type of intuitive response.

I made my call, and as it turned out - due to the lucky roll - it played out as Thurgon hoped. If that test of faith had failed, what would have happened instead? I don't know what the GM had in mind, but some sort of pulling down of Thurgon for his hubris would make sense, and that would take him and his personality in quite a different direction.

It requires them to make decision about the use of meta resource, existence of which the character is not aware of, thus could not make that decision.

First, it's not obvious to me that the character is not aware of this "meta resource" - the character can dig deep, try hard, and exert their will, and that is one way of understanding the expenditure of the resource.

Second, and my main point: the MHRP approach requires less thinking about rules than the D&D approach, of setting target numbers, performing arithmetic, and comparing resulting values to a look-up.

This seems needlessly cumbersome.

Yet it is how D&D (or any other roll, add, compare to DC/difficulty/etc system) works.