D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Micah Sweet]

Fantasy worlds consist primarily of non-PC's. The PC's are inherently special by virtue of them being PC's. They have levels and classes, which others don't, and acapacity for absurd growth over a short time. Again, your arguing what you wish D&D was, rather than what D&D IS. And in D&D, the focus is on people who are special.

You arent running a world simulation in a vacuum. You already consciously put the spotlight on special people doing heroic things, not some chump cobbler mending shoes 7 days a week to barely make ends meet and pay his taxes. PC's don't slip off a ladder and die while lighting a street lamp or choke to death on a fish bone while eating, all things that happen in the real world. Extend the same logic you're already applying a bit further.

You and I are fundamentally opposed in playstyle. No argument supporting the specialness of PCs is going to fly with me.

 

[Pedantic]

Thank you, yes.

I'm starting to see a distinction here. I play with friends. They're good players who care about the game. I'm a permissive GM that trusts them and likes to roll with their ideas. My games are great.

Other people seem to play with people who don't care about the game, who will knowingly declare nonsensical actions just to get a perceived advantage and will do so repeatedly. The GM in such a game might feel like they have to hang on for dear life, keeping control of the game's integrity against the players, and might well conclude that trusting players doesn't work.

Ah, see I can imagine nothing more disrespectful to a game (or more precisely, to the other players) than not trying to win it, and no worse design sin than asking me not to do that sometimes. The "integrity" of the game is a matter for the design and systems to solve, not for the players.

Obviously this is an unreasonable standard for any edition of D&D, but we certainly shouldn't celebrate moving further away from it. Putting in ill-defined mechanics alongside ill-defined goals for play is just compounding trouble.

 

[mamba]

To me, a PC ability should work as described without needing approval by the GM

to me too, which is why I consider this a very poorly worded ability that should not have been published that way

 

[soviet]

You'd be a schmuck in some of these game worlds to not be a caster, right?

I'd like to get an invitation to - NOPE, they don't know who you are.

I'd like to contact my - NOPE, logistics.

I'd like to get passage - NOPE, not realistic, aaargh my verisimilitude!

I'll just cast a spell - SURE THING BUDDY, PERFECT SUCCESS

 

[Bae'zel]

Tell that to Shadowheart and Gale!

Despite their stats, their Charisma scores were 20 to me.

Scratch that, all of the companions did.

Edit: even Lae’zel. That loveable grouch with those abs… sorry what were we talking about?

 

[TwoSix]

You'd be a schmuck in some of these game worlds to not be a caster, right?

I'd like to get an invitation to - NOPE, they don't know who you are.

I'd like to contact my - NOPE, logistics.

I'd like to get passage - NOPE, not realistic, aaargh my verisimilitude!

I'll just cast a spell - SURE THING BUDDY, PERFECT SUCCESS

Which is why I always play casters in modern D&D. I know where my bread is being buttered.

 

[Bae'zel]

You and I are fundamentally opposed in playstyle. No argument supporting the specialness of PCs is going to fly with me.

That’s totally valid as a playstyle.

I paid my dues as a filth-covered rat catcher whose only true friend was a small but vicious dog (until I ate her when I transformed into a Chaos Spawn Lobster).

 

[Pedantic]

Which is why I always play casters in modern D&D. I know where my bread is being buttered.

I'm legitimately not joking when I say this should be the only option presented to players. Modern fantasy is even trending this direction, strict magical/non-magical skill separation is pretty rare in modern fantasy protagonists. Characters can still use swords, they should just also get particle effects and we can take advantage of the game design convenience of self-contained techniques.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm legitimately not joking when I say this should be the only option presented to players. Modern fantasy is even trending this direction, strict magical/non-magical skill separation is pretty rare in modern fantasy protagonists. Characters can still use swords, they should just also get particle effects and we can take advantage of the game design convenience of self-contained techniques.

As a big fan of 4e, it would be very hard for me to say I disagree with you.

And absolutely agree on modern fantasy; most martial types in modern fantasy rely on some sort of "martial technique" that is supernatural but not "robe and staff" blaster magic.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Magic is not "merely" fluff in my games. It is consistent and follows rules. One of the rules it follows is that it allows effects to occur that would be impossible without it (or some equivalent technology, usually unavailable in a fantasy game). I know a lot of folks seem to hate the idea that magic has any advantage over not-magic, but IMO it just does (sorry).

Now, a fair magic system balances that ability with restrictions. In my ideal fantasy games those restriction are real and make in actual play. It's not my fault that WotC decided more people give them money if most of those restrictions went away.

Magic is the fluff for that whole section of game, though. I don't say that to diminish its importance in the fiction, but rather to describe it as a game element. It consists of moves that the player can make.

As I said, the idea that magic always works but mundane abilities that always work are a problem is due to a flawed way of looking at the game.

If you write it into the setting, as far as I'm concerned it's part of the game, whether the PCs have encountered it yet or not.

Oh, I'm sure. But my point is if that's all it ever amounts to... if it doesn't really matter to actual play except that it's a reason to deny player requests or actions, then it's probably something that can be done without.

I have absolutely no problem when there is a legitimate reason for some kind of player declaration to not work. I just think my idea of "legitimate" is probably a bit higher than the DM saying "Nah, I don't like it" or similar.

Mainly because the only spell that fits would often be an improved version of a well known 9th level enchantment spell that was altered to have global/omniplanar unlimited number of targets with no save & permanent duration that was cast during chargen.

Magic has a lot of limits though

What? It can be accomplished often with a simple skill check. Or, if the DM doesn't think there's a reason the request would fail, then it can auto-succeed.

No high-level magic needed.

I'm open to the idea there is some reason this particular context overrides the rulebook, but I think it's the GM's responsibility to convey that context to the player/s such that there is adequate buy-in to move on. "Nope" won't do it, most of the time.

Precisely. I just don't get the kneejerk reaction to say no to all player requests. I have a buddy who does it when he runs D&D and it's maddening. We have to jump through so many hoops just to get to the point where something interesting can then happen.

I like to narrate past the boring crap pretty quickly and get to the interesting part of play.

Which is why I always play casters in modern D&D. I know where my bread is being buttered.

It's also why every class now has magical subclasses. Because the designers know.