D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[Maxperson]

Except that--as a person who has been a fan of basketball to some extent--I am quite familiar with the consequences of having a team of "superstars who ball hog and score...lots and lots of points". It doesn't lead to victory! My preferred team, the Portland Trailblazers, had an absolute star-studded roster when I was a kid/teen. And guess what? They were so dysfunctional it never got them anywhere special. Once they started actually playing like a team, rather than playing like five individuals who just coincidentally happened to all be shooting hoops at the same time--once they got rid of their "superstar...ball hog" players and actually cared about putting together a team, they started doing MUCH better, both on the court and off the court.

Point being, no. It's not just that teamwork "works better". It's that basketball is actually a team-based sport, and people who try to play it like "superstars" who need no team simply don't succeed much--if at all.

Tell that to Michael Jordan who scored 25+ points in 73.6% of his games. For his ball hogging not to win games, the final score would have to have had the Bulls win by more points than he scored. Games are typically closer than that. And he's not the only ball hogger to win games through high scoring talent.

 

[TwoSix]

no, but see, there's that emotional possessiveness i was just talking about, you'd like to believe your character was more sensible than that, that they'd see through the ruse, that they wouldn't buy the coloured water, but part of roleplaying is accepting the scenario you are presented with, you failed the insight check, so your character thinks those bottles are full of potion, you don't get to think better than your character because you don't like the scenario.

This can vary with the system, but I mostly agree with this.

The decision making portion of the game at the table, to me, is like an improv game. You have a concept, and you play the limitations the game hands out to you to the hilt. Who your character is heavily shaped by the resolution system, not just by your decisions as a player. I like to play to find out who the character is, not to assert and demonstrate who they are.

 

[Maxperson]

That's just a multiplayer game.

That has nothing to do with being team-based.

Teams don't require close teamwork to get things done. You can in fact have a team where everyone has an individual role and it's left to each member to decide how best to help the team reach its goal.

 

[Maxperson]

This can vary with the system, but I mostly agree with this.

The decision making portion of the game at the table, to me, is like an improv game. You have a concept, and you play the limitations the game hands out to you to the hilt. Who your character is heavily shaped by the resolution system, not just by your decisions as a player. I like to play to find out who the character is, not to assert and demonstrate who they are.

I can say with great certainty that I play all my PCs and find out who they are through gameplay, and I make all the decisions. I can't come up with every aspect of a character's personality, so when a situation comes up in the game that tests what I do know, or tests something I haven't thought of, I have to run that situation through both what I have come up with, game circumstances which can and do put that to the test, and prior decisions about my character. The character will often make decisions I would not have thought would be made when I first came up with the idea. And will often make decisions I do think would have been made.

The final result is a mix of decisions that alters who the PC is into something I didn't envision when I first came up with the concept and developed that character before the first session.

You don't need a resolution system to enable you to play to find out who the character is, and I think such a system would frequently run afoul of who the character is, because a system cannot know the details of the character like the player can.

 

[TwoSix]

You don't need a resolution system to enable you to play to find out who the character is, and I think such a system would frequently run afoul of who the character is, because a system cannot know the details of the character like the player can.

Of course you don't need it. But it's fun! (Value of fun based on participant, satisfaction not guaranteed. See a doctor if your level of fun does not diminish after four hours.)

 

[TwoSix]

I can say with great certainty that I play all my PCs and find out who they are through gameplay, and I make all the decisions.

Just to clear up semantics, when I say "play to find out", I mean specifically I want the dice and the game's resolution engine to tell me the answer, based on my character design and decisions.

If "play to find out" for you means you leave your character concept relatively ambiguous until the situation comes up in play, and then make the decision about the character, that's perfectly understandable. I just want to be clear that wasn't how I was using the term. I don't think either usage is right or wrong, just want to provide clarity as to my position.

 

[Maxperson]

Just to clear up semantics, when I say "play to find out", I mean specifically I want the dice and the game's resolution engine to tell me the answer, based on my character design and decisions.

How does that work? How can the resolution system take your decisions into account?

If "play to find out" for you means you leave your character concept relatively ambiguous until the situation comes up in play, and then make the decision about the character, that's perfectly understandable. I just want to be clear that wasn't how I was using the term. I don't think either usage is right or wrong, just want to provide clarity as to my position.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[TwoSix]

How does that work? How can the resolution system take your decisions into account?

This is high-level, but for me, a well-designed resolution will have its output framed by the input of the fictional position (I've put my character in a stronger position to succeed, so the chance of the resolution being in my character's favor is improved), as well as accounting for character build choices (I have a trait that makes these types of checks more likely to succeed, and I've spent a resource on improving the odds).

 

[Maxperson]

This is high-level, but for me, a well-designed resolution will have its output framed by the input of the fictional position (I've put my character in a stronger position to succeed, so the chance of the resolution being in my character's favor is improved), as well as accounting for character build choices (I have a trait that makes these types of checks more likely to succeed, and I've spent a resource on improving the odds).

I figured build choices/character design would have an impact. What I was asking about decisions is something along the lines of if prior resolutions and decisions of honesty have shown the PC to be very honest, will future tests of honesty be skewed towards success?

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah. The  concept of class limitations by ancestry is sound and valid-- with or without ancestral classes-- but the implementation left a lot to be desired. I think there  should be a default set in the core rules, but with a sidebar saying that it's not set in stone and umpires/tables should feel free to tailor it to their setting and lore.

As little as I like the Four in the Core in the first place, the premise that every ancestry has access to Priest (almost always Cleric), Fighter, and Thief... with few races having  any Mage or Druid, and even fewer having Ranger, Paladin, or Bard... just feels like a wasted opportunity. Dark Sun and Planescape were  great about blowing this open, not just adding more options, but restricting them, too; it seems like a small thing, but "thri-kreen can't be thieves; those with an inclination to stealth become rangers" is a  powerful statement, especially when contrasted with their xixchil cousins.


Speaking of little changes reshaping the "feel" of a world... try replacing the Tolkien Trio (plus orcs) with goblinoids and half-goblinoids. Doesn't seem like a big deal?

I wholly understand the reasoning behind homogenizing the PC ancestries and humanoid monsters between settings, but I consider it regrettable. Every old setting does, and every new setting  should, have its own unique character and the population is a big part of that.

Drow are an iconic part of Greyhawk and the Realms, but they're out of place om Krynn, Mystara, or Athas. Thri-kreen canonically existed on Oerth and Toril before Dark Sun was even a pitch... but they feel weird as player characters there; thri-kreen and xixchil work much better in Spelljammer than they do even in  Planescape.

Having worlds where certain things don't exist makes the "D&D Multiverse" more vibrant than having everything, everywhere, all at once.

And that works for a game where there are dozens of supported classes and species for each setting to use and choose from. But WotC isn't good at making new classes and really bad at supporting them beyond the initial offering. So your end up with settings where species are restricted to maybe a handful of options and nothing else. And I guess that's fine if a steady diet of dwarf fighters, elf mages and halfling thieves is all you want, but I was tired of them by the end of 2e and wanted different things. I certainly don't want to get into the stereotyping of "orcs can't be paladins because they don't value honor" or "halflings can't be barbarians because they are too timid and civilized" type of explanations.