D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[jmartkdr2]

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 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)

At that level of realism we should also note that wizards and dragons and elves don't exist, and dungeons are usually just one room.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@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.

But, to a large degree, they always will be.

A lot of people I've seen say "I don't want disassociated mechanics, I want bespoke rules for everything that match what is really going on in the situation" are looking for realism. For every mechanic to tie directly into the world in their imagination and hewing ever closer to being exact. Now, maybe you have a different view, or a less extreme view, but you are always going to get some degree of this, no matter how hard you try to keep things simple.

 

[Chaosmancer]

At that level of realism we should also note that wizards and dragons and elves don't exist, and dungeons are usually just one room.

At which level? At the level represented by earlier editions of the game rules? Or at the level of recognizing that the PCs are designed to be unrealistic action heroes at their weakest, and mythical beings at their strongest? Kind of hard to tell which thing you are disagreeing with since you quoted both as though they were making the same points.

 

[pemerton]

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.

"Plot point" is what the game calls it. I gave an example of how it can be used.

You're the one who labelled it "meta", I assumed based on your knowledge of and experience with the system.

Your paleolithic example is more cumbersome than the current approach

The current approach requires (i) the player to declare their action, then (ii) the GM to call for a roll using a particular stat/skill (assuming they don't just declare success or failure), then (iii) the player to roll the dice and add the appropriate bonus read from their PC sheet, then (iv) the GM to compare that result to the DC that they look up (in their notes, on a table, perhaps make up on the spot).

There are more steps there, and more back-and-forth, than the process I described for MHRP, in which the GM's description of the scene also rates the Scene Distinction, and which permits the player to then declare their action and have it be successful by spending a plot point. The player still has to consult their sheet (to see their Climbing rating), but don't need to roll anything, add anything, or consult with the GM about the resolution process.

I personally know which one makes me think more about the fiction, and which one makes me think more about stuff that is extraneous to the fiction.

most of the numbers are already internalised

Maybe? My experience is that players often look up their sheet to see their rating/bonus.

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.

But talking about those numbers, and performing calculations, isn't a way of being immersed in the fiction. It's a way of being immersed in arithmetic.

The fact that there may be some sort of representational relationship doesn't change that.

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?

My point is this: once we all agree that "experiencing the things as the character" is metaphor - for the reason that we are none of us insane - then who do you think is third person authoring the character, as opposed to engaging in first person immersion in character?

Because you, and @Emirikol, keep posting that - as a matter of logic - I must be "dissociated" from my character when playing Burning Wheel, due to the presence of Persona and Fate, or due to the fact that some action declarations are not resolved by the GM consulting records of past decisions of authorship.

And that is what I am denying. I've done a lot of RPGing. I know the difference between (say, and to adopt a somewhat arbitrary division into 3 options) (i) moving a "pawn" through a dungeon like White Plume Mountain, (ii) doing some superficial characterisation in a game where most of the events will happen as they happen regardless of the way I play my character (this could be anything from Castle Amber to a standard 2nd ed era railroad), and (iii) actually inhabiting a character and feeling genuine emotion as they confront choices and have meaningful things happen to them as a person.

And the attempt to tell me that Burning Wheel, or Marvel Heroic RP, can't involve (iii) because of certain technical details of its resolution procedure is going to fail. I've played the games, I know what sort of RPing they permit.

 

[pemerton]

By your posts.

I am not insisting "that all methods of authoring a character are the same and make for the same experience". Rather, I am denying that claims others' are making about how mechanics and immersion relate are true.

I've played games where characters are authored in a shallow fashion, without much regard to seriousness of the fiction or the play experience. Most of them used D&D rules. That may say something about the D&D rules, but I also says something about the relatively broad audience that D&D attracts.

I've played games where characters are authored in a way that takes the fiction seriously: the fictions have cares and even passions, and that drives their decision-making. The play I've experienced that has fit this description has used systems as varied as Rolemaster and Cthulhu Dark, Burning Wheel and Classic Traveller. The notion that it somehow impedes this process to be able (say) to spend a "point" of some sort to add a bonus die (or whatever) is an empirical conjecture for which I have never encountered any evidence.

 

[pemerton]

The sort of simulationism I was referring to is not really about realism, it is about the rules not being disassociated.

All you mean by "disassociated" is that there are processes that occur in the mechanical resolution that do not correlate to events or processes in the fiction.

That feature of rules - which is a logical feature (for lack of a better word in English) - tells us nothing about the psychological states and processes involved in immersing in the fiction.

I mean, you yourself concede the point in so far as you recognise that one of the least "disassociated" and most simulationist rulesets ever devised - Rolemaster - nevertheless requires a lot of thinking about mechanical processes which don't always produce immersion in the fiction.

 

[Distracted DM]

I didn't mean "sorry, your character died of old age," but that whilst the human is a grizzled grey-haired veteran, the elf looks just as youthful when they first met decades ago.

Frieren vibes. If you don't know what I'm referring to, and are cool with anime, check out Frieren.

 

[Lanefan]

But, to a large degree, they always will be.

A lot of people I've seen say "I don't want disassociated mechanics, I want bespoke rules for everything that match what is really going on in the situation" are looking for realism. For every mechanic to tie directly into the world in their imagination and hewing ever closer to being exact. Now, maybe you have a different view, or a less extreme view, but you are always going to get some degree of this, no matter how hard you try to keep things simple.

It's more a question of whether the rules are there to reflect the fiction or the fiction is there to reflect the rules. Which comes first?

Example, assuming gravity works the same as on Earth:

If, based on our own real-life observations, a typically strong (Human) character can jump 4 feet straight up then does the rule match that? (fiction first)

Or does a rule that says a typically strong character's maximum vertical jump is 10 feet force the fiction to bend to suit that rule? (rules first)

 

[FrogReaver]

I am not insisting "that all methods of authoring a character are the same and make for the same experience". Rather, I am denying that claims others' are making about how mechanics and immersion relate are true.

So you agree some methods of authoring a character make for different experiences. Then why stop short of saying some methods of authoring a character make for greater immersion (immersion is an experience after all)? Or to go a step further, isn't one of the goals of narrativism to create methods for narrating the character that centers the fiction around the character and what matters to them and thus can lead the player to a more immersive experience in regards of the character and those issues that matter to the character?

Is it fair to say that the only real difference of opinion here is which methods of authoring lead to the more immersive experience? And if so, is it possible that this difference of opinion is because we mean different things by immersive experience?

I've played games where characters are authored in a shallow fashion, without much regard to seriousness of the fiction or the play experience.

What do you mean by this mean?

I've played games where characters are authored in a way that takes the fiction seriously: the fictions have cares and even passions, and that drives their decision-making.

Also, what do you mean by this?

The play I've experienced that has fit this description has used systems as varied as Rolemaster and Cthulhu Dark, Burning Wheel and Classic Traveller. The notion that it somehow impedes this process to be able (say) to spend a "point" of some sort to add a bonus die (or whatever) is an empirical conjecture for which I have never encountered any evidence.

I'd suggest we have to be precise on what we mean, because I think we are after 2 different types of immersion. For your type that disassociation may not matter. For our type, it certainly does.

 

[FrogReaver]

"Plot point" is what the game calls it. I gave an example of how it can be used.

You're the one who labelled it "meta", I assumed based on your knowledge of and experience with the system.

The current approach requires (i) the player to declare their action, then (ii) the GM to call for a roll using a particular stat/skill (assuming they don't just declare success or failure), then (iii) the player to roll the dice and add the appropriate bonus read from their PC sheet, then (iv) the GM to compare that result to the DC that they look up (in their notes, on a table, perhaps make up on the spot).

There are more steps there, and more back-and-forth, than the process I described for MHRP, in which the GM's description of the scene also rates the Scene Distinction, and which permits the player to then declare their action and have it be successful by spending a plot point. The player still has to consult their sheet (to see their Climbing rating), but don't need to roll anything, add anything, or consult with the GM about the resolution process.

The reason I no longer talk about other games with you unless I'm intimately familiar is because of exactly this kind of thing. You just denied a mechanic is meta, to the point of getting @Crimson Longinus to agree with you, only to then share a scenario in which it absolutely is meta. Do you realize how frustrating that makes a conversation?

My point is this: once we all agree that "experiencing the things as the character" is metaphor - for the reason that we are none of us insane - then who do you think is third person authoring the character, as opposed to engaging in first person immersion in character?

Alternatively if you agree it's a metaphor then that metaphor has meaning that we just can't push to the side. In case it's not clear to you - this is the kind of statement that makes it seem you believe there is only one kind of third person authoring the character, even though we've already agreed the metaphor of 'first person immersion in character' is a different way to author the character than the other methods.

Because you, and @Emirikol, keep posting that - as a matter of logic - I must be "dissociated" from my character when playing Burning Wheel, due to the presence of Persona and Fate, or due to the fact that some action declarations are not resolved by the GM consulting records of past decisions of authorship.

I think the concept of a 1 to 1 relationship between the fiction as we intend to imagine it and the fiction as the mechanics dictate isn't that hard of a concept. If the problem is the word "disassociated" then call the absence of this 1 to 1 relationship whatever you want. The point is the existence vs absence of this 1 to 1 relationship.

And that is what I am denying. I've done a lot of RPGing. I know the difference between (say, and to adopt a somewhat arbitrary division into 3 options) (i) moving a "pawn" through a dungeon like White Plume Mountain, (ii) doing some superficial characterisation in a game where most of the events will happen as they happen regardless of the way I play my character (this could be anything from Castle Amber to a standard 2nd ed era railroad), and (iii) actually inhabiting a character and feeling genuine emotion as they confront choices and have meaningful things happen to them as a person.

And the attempt to tell me that Burning Wheel, or Marvel Heroic RP, can't involve (iii) because of certain technical details of its resolution procedure is going to fail. I've played the games, I know what sort of RPing they permit.

For what it's worth, I think this is a good illustration that it's mostly about the people and not the system. People have different experiences with different systems, and this is clearly seen through our different views on which system best allows for immersion.