D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[tetrasodium]

Since it was discussed earlier, and is certainly related to modern d&D's excessive healing power creep...

I guess the implication is that wotc feels healing power creep in 5e is so excessively over the top that player actions &choices in the lead up to a PC death play no partin in what is entirely a "dm mistake".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The Warlord in the corner would like a word...

I'm sure this is tongue in cheek, but honestly...please don't. I've dealt with way too many people telling me the things I like are bad and wrong specifically for this reason. I also think we both know I was speaking of one player "drafting" another player, as in, coercing someone to do something against their will.

And that's all good and fair. Your post to which I was replying seemed to have a different tone - more about "my" story than the group's story - and that's what made me curious.

The two things cannot be separated, any more than you could somehow separate a Persian rug from its threads or the sauce from a meal and still have either make any sense. The threads without the rug may be bright and colorful and well-made, but they can't really sing. The rug without the threads doesn't even exist. Each is dependent on the other for it to have the real value one seeks.

Collaborative storytelling is just different because the threads/ingredients are also people, and thus aware.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To kind of build a little bit off of this. People react differently to different people.

I was making a character for a game that hasn't started yet. They were going to be a very battle-lusting type of character. Then I found out that my six ft five orc was going to be the only character above 3 ft tall. So, I immediately realized that this character would have called to the other people in the arena to put her on the team with this group, to give the other teams a handicap. And then, when we get out of the Arena, we've already got angles on how my character is going to view and react to the other members of the group. Behaviors that did not exist in my original idea, that came about because of who and what the other characters are going to be.

Exactly. You chose a thread: a vibrant color, a particular material, a distinctive feel. Then, you realized the threads that the others had chosen could be woven with yours into much more complex patterns than you had even considered beforehand. That didn't mean you were abandoning your choice of thread. It just meant you were expanding the potential horizon and narrowing in on patterns you thought would be particularly interesting, since the only thing you can control in the weave is what direction your needle is pointing.

The others, likewise, will do the same, and things will result. But you still chose your thread, and you choose which way your needle points. Some choices would produce an ugly tapestry, and that's generally something to avoid if possible.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

It is not that, or rather it is not just that. What you describe is merely one tool.

But in any case, the actual point is about the difference between first person immersion to the character, experiencing the things as the character, vs third person authoring the character. Your diversions in style of "you're not actually an elf in fantasy land though" are besides the point. Everyone knows that, we are not insane so it is just confusing and pointless to bring such up. I truly do not understand what you're even trying to do. Deny the existence of first person immersion?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Then that is not really "meta" anymore, is it? But given that your example literally called it "plot point" this approach seems unlikely, unless you're playing Deadpool or She-Hulk.

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.

Which in in a decent game are trivial.

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

It's not quite though. Your paleolithic example is more cumbersome than the current approach and most of the numbers are already internalised and more importantly merely representations of things the character knows. Having DC 20 climb is synonymous with the surface being pretty darn difficult to climb, and having an athletics bonus of +8 is synonymous with being a decent climber.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. You can probably find me posting this point on these boards 15 years ago.

Insistence by whom?

By your posts.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not quite though. Your paleolithic example is more cumbersome than the current approach and most of the numbers are already internalised and more importantly merely representations of things the character knows.

Yes, the current approach has the math be quite a bit easier. The current approach has also near-constantly been... let's say criticized for being less realistic. Too much "fantasy superheroes" and not enough "Gritty dungeon delving" for some people. Are we going to claim there is zero correlation between easier and more "abstracted" math and the accusations of a loss of realism?

Having DC 20 climb is synonymous with the surface being pretty darn difficult to climb, and having an athletics bonus of +8 is synonymous with being a decent climber.

Minor point, but I think the scale of such things is often not actually well presented. Because I cannot see a world where a +8 is "decent" if we are going to take the scaling of normal people seriously.

Let us say you have no training. Can you get a +8 with pure "natural talent" via Ability Scores? No. Absolutely not.

Okay, let us say you are an average person (+0 or +1), and you have training. Can you get a +8 that way? No. If you have a +1 and you are essentially a demi-god (level 17 to 20 character) you can get a +7.

Okay, what if you are an average person (+0 or +1) and you were a climbing expert. THEN could you hit a +8? Yes, by "level 9" you could get a +8 by doubling your +4 prof mod. And what general tier of skill do we consider that level? This is the top end of "Heroes of the Realm" and moving into "Masters of the Realm" ie You are somewhere between one of the top people in the country to the top in the world.

We can get it earlier of course. You just have to be massively innately talented AND a trained master in the field. And I do mean massively. The last time we really had full descriptions of what the Ability Scores meant I believe was 2e. And they listed Intelligence. A 12 was "Very Intelligent", 14 was "Highly Intelligent", 16 was "Exceptionally Intelligent" and 18 was "Genius". To hit a +8 before level 5 you need to be a trained master in the field AND have a "genius" level score.

Which... is not how I would define "decent" which means "adequate"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, the current approach has the math be quite a bit easier. The current approach has also near-constantly been... let's say criticized for being less realistic. Too much "fantasy superheroes" and not enough "Gritty dungeon delving" for some people. Are we going to claim there is zero correlation between easier and more "abstracted" math and the accusations of a loss of realism?

Yes, I definitely am. The challenge or realism some people wish for are not about cumbersome mechanics of convoluted math. When people say old editions were more challenging, they generally do not mean THAC0 being PITA to use!

Minor point, but I think the scale of such things is often not actually well presented. Because I cannot see a world where a +8 is "decent" if we are going to take the scaling of normal people seriously.

Let us say you have no training. Can you get a +8 with pure "natural talent" via Ability Scores? No. Absolutely not.

Okay, let us say you are an average person (+0 or +1), and you have training. Can you get a +8 that way? No. If you have a +1 and you are essentially a demi-god (level 17 to 20 character) you can get a +7.

Okay, what if you are an average person (+0 or +1) and you were a climbing expert. THEN could you hit a +8? Yes, by "level 9" you could get a +8 by doubling your +4 prof mod. And what general tier of skill do we consider that level? This is the top end of "Heroes of the Realm" and moving into "Masters of the Realm" ie You are somewhere between one of the top people in the country to the top in the world.

We can get it earlier of course. You just have to be massively innately talented AND a trained master in the field. And I do mean massively. The last time we really had full descriptions of what the Ability Scores meant I believe was 2e. And they listed Intelligence. A 12 was "Very Intelligent", 14 was "Highly Intelligent", 16 was "Exceptionally Intelligent" and 18 was "Genius". To hit a +8 before level 5 you need to be a trained master in the field AND have a "genius" level score.

Which... is not how I would define "decent" which means "adequate"

I think "decent" is better than "adequate." But yes, it is "decent" for a legendary cinematic action adventure hero, but pretty amazing for a normal person.* But that's besides the point. The number represents how good the character is and the character knows how good they are.

* (Three of the four characters in my campaign has athletics 8 or better. The best has 12.)

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, I definitely am. The challenge or realism some people wish for are not about cumbersome mechanics of convoluted math. When people say old editions were more challenging, they generally do not mean THAC0 being PITA to use!

But they would mean things like a fireball filling a volume, and spreading out in a more tightly enclosed space, correct? Or things like different weapons working differently against different types of armors. The types of things which do still bring a lot of mechanical complexity to the rules.

You don't often see them praising systems with fewer mechanics and less complexity.

I think "decent" is better than "adequate." But yes, it is "decent" for a legendary cinematic action adventure hero, but pretty amazing for a normal person.* But that's besides the point. The number represents how good the character is and the character knows how good they are.

* (Three of the four characters in my campaign has athletics 8 or better. The best has 12.)

I agree that a character knows how good they are. But, again, if we were to be more "realistic" most PCs would be "normal people" not "legendary cinematic action adventure heroes" (who are famously unrealistic). You know, farm boy who just got his father's rusty sword and is going to kill rats types, not "I have a particular set of skills which make me a nightmare for people like you" or "He's who you send to kill the Boogieman" types.

Which would mean most PCs would have a +1 or +2 to their athletics, and likely take penalties for not having gear. Especially if climbing more than 10 or 15 ft in on something vertical that isn't full of support points like a tree (and a more realistic game would have a wider variety of DCs and skills to cover how rock climbing is different than tree climbing is different than ice climbing)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Chaosmancer I've not been arguing for realism here. The sort of simulationism I was referring to is not really about realism, it is about the rules not being disassociated.