D&D 5E 'daily' Powers/leveling breaking immersion?

[DND_Reborn]

Well now that your avatar is no longer Merlin, I find myself looking your way less and less

Hey hey hey! I am still an awesome 1E Wizardy-type!

 

[Gorgon Zee]

"Immersion" is a tricky thing and is extremely personal. It's a fairly vague notion, but seems mostly to be a feeling that you the rules don't get in the way of you doing what seems natural for you to want your character to do.

When it breaks down, it's because of a disconnect. It may be that the rules are just bad, but it can also be that the player just doesn't want to play by those rules, so their internal model of the world cannot synch with the rules.

Daily powers are a pretty good example. If your model of the world is that you can do anything anytime, then there's a big disconnect because daily powers directly contradict that. If, however, you have internalized that model of the world, then it does not break immersion: You barbarian is too worn out to rage more; your wizard cannot recall that spell; your bard needs a beak from playing.

For me, it's not hard to internalize rules that restrict actions. I find it much harder to internalize rules that force you to take action. So for me it's harder for me to be immersed in a PbtA game, as it constantly forces me to make up interesting things, and my brain really rebels against the thought that everything myst be interesting.

So I think the best strategy is to find a game where your brain doesn't rebel against lots of the assumptions, and then it's your job to do what actors do when we find things in a script that don't make sense to us; we spend time and energy working out how it could make sense, and then use that as our reaction.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

It's more than daily powers, though. Even the idea of 'are we high enough level to be doing this part of the adventure?' seems to be popping up more. Maybe because we're currently doing a module? Idk. I'm just making decisions based on events in the game and how I feel my character would act. Then there's the, 'oh, I wasn't expecting that!' from the DM and suddenly we're facing a boss and I'm thinking, "Oh crap, should we have done one of the 'side quests' first?"

To me, I shouldn't be thinking of events as 'main quest/side quest'. It should just be: here are the series of events that lead to this moment.

 

[prabe]

It's more than daily powers, though. Even the idea of 'are we high enough level to be doing this part of the adventure?' seems to be popping up more. Maybe because we're currently doing a module? Idk. I'm just making decisions based on events in the game and how I feel my character would act. Then there's the, 'oh, I wasn't expecting that!' from the DM and suddenly we're facing a boss and I'm thinking, "Oh crap, should we have done one of the 'side quests' first?"

To me, I shouldn't be thinking of events as 'main quest/side quest'. It should just be: here are the series of events that lead to this moment.

That could be something in how the adventure is written or how it's being run. IIRC, you mainly GM, which may also be shaping your thinking here. I don't know the adventure, and I'm obviously not at the table to see how it's being run, but on the occasions when I've struggled with immersion I've found that thinking about it less was more helpful than thinking about it more. It's easier to suspend disbelief if you don't think about the strings, let alone the puppeteer.

 

[tommybahama]

Even the idea of 'are we high enough level to be doing this part of the adventure?' seems to be popping up more.

An adventurer has got to know his limits.

A simple comment such as, " This is not the time nor place to fight this battle," and knowing nods from your companions should be enough of an explanation. If you happen to travel with fools who wish to fight anyway, just say, "I wish to die gloriously in battle, not commit suicide."

 

[MichaelSomething]

Daily powers is a gamist construct. It's designed to be easy to use at the table. You can have an "immersive" combat system, but that has its own drawbacks, I think the biggest one would be complexity. Instead of a power you could use whenever you want, you could account for the variables that would influence what maneuver was feasible. Of course, this would add extra steps and/or dice rolls to every attack, but isn't that a small price to pay?

And don't forget balance. If you care about balance, this may hamper it.

Now if these things don't bother you, I'll gladly help make a new immersive combat system!

 

[MarkB]

It's more than daily powers, though. Even the idea of 'are we high enough level to be doing this part of the adventure?' seems to be popping up more. Maybe because we're currently doing a module? Idk. I'm just making decisions based on events in the game and how I feel my character would act. Then there's the, 'oh, I wasn't expecting that!' from the DM and suddenly we're facing a boss and I'm thinking, "Oh crap, should we have done one of the 'side quests' first?"

To me, I shouldn't be thinking of events as 'main quest/side quest'. It should just be: here are the series of events that lead to this moment.

Experience gain isn't purely a metagame concept, though, not even for straight combat characters. People within the setting know that as they become more experienced in matters of combat and adventuring, they are able to take on greater threats than they could before. They can empirically observe how much better they're standing up to threats that would have overwhelmed them previously.

You even see this in fantasy literature. Look at the Scouring of the Shire in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. When the hobbits return to the Shire they find it overrun by ruffians who have all the locals intimidated, and who they themselves would have been just as intimidated by if it had happened before their adventures. But to the returning hobbits, especially Merry and Pippin who served in the armies of Rohan and Gondor, these foes are hardly a threat worth noticing, and rallying the Shire to oust the whole lot of them is well within their capabilities.

 

[dave2008]

It's more than daily powers, though. Even the idea of 'are we high enough level to be doing this part of the adventure?' seems to be popping up more. Maybe because we're currently doing a module? Idk. I'm just making decisions based on events in the game and how I feel my character would act. Then there's the, 'oh, I wasn't expecting that!' from the DM and suddenly we're facing a boss and I'm thinking, "Oh crap, should we have done one of the 'side quests' first?"

Probably a module / DM thing. I don't run published adventures and my group used to stumble into areas that are too tough for them all the time. If just happens and that is OK. My players have learned to be more cautious now, but since we only level up about 2-3 levels per year of game play, my players can't really wait until they "level up"

To me, I shouldn't be thinking of events as 'main quest/side quest'. It should just be: here are the series of events that lead to this moment.

I hate to say it, but that sounds at least partially like a player issue (though perhaps the DM is telegraphing what is main vs side).

 

[Shiroiken]

Every time I think, 'oh maybe I should take a short rest to regain my ability' it takes me out of character in an annoying way. "I only have 1 rage left, maybe we shouldn't go and kill those minions in room (a) and, instead fight the boss in room (b) because we don't have time for a Long Rest. The decisions are often metagame decisions and not character decisions. The DM sometimes hints at things being a 'side quest' etc... or 'I wasn't expecting you guys to get here so soon' probably is doing a bit also. I dunno.

Characters would have an idea of their current level of strength, even if it's not as detailed as the players know. A spellcaster would know how much magical energy they have left, and a warrior would know how much they hurt (or tired, if you us HP as a form of exhaustion, like I do). This means they know if they're not ready to push on, or the risks if they do (sometimes you just have to). If player go nova then refuse to continue until they rest, the DM should have enemies respond accordingly, possibly causing the PCs to fail their quest.

As for the players going farther than they should for their level, that's a failure of adventure/campaign design. As I understand it, Princes of the Apocalypse suffered from this problem. The DM should adjust his campaign plans based on the player's actions, always making sure there are enough immediate threats to keep them from just going off to face the villain at level 4.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Even the idea of 'are we high enough level to be doing this part of the adventure?' seems to be popping up more.

I guess I don't get why this is a problem. "Level" is just an abstraction for experience, power, confidence, etc. Why is it a problem for wannabe-heroes to recognize that they're still noobs?