D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[Oofta]

Isn't the whole point of fantasy not having to think too hard?

I kid. A bit. But it is true that fantasy doesn't tend to ask tough questions the way sci-fi does. You certainly don't want to think too hard about D&D settings because non of them make any sense.

The real world doesn't make sense half the time, doesn't mean we can't try to figure out how it works. I don't get the assertion that sci-fi is any more realistic. Sci-fi breaks all sorts of rules of physics and logic left and right. They just hide it behind pseudo science babble, but it's just different fluff to explain the impossible. Star Trek is chock full of BS.

What can I say? I want my campaign world to make sense. It makes more sense if I try to figure out consequences of magic and monsters being real. I'm not saying my way is better. But don't pretend that Warp Drive, humans having children with alien species, teleporters or being able to breath the same atmosphere and eat the same food is any more "realistic". It's not, and I say that as a fan of sci-fi.

Both science fiction and fantasy simply come up with explanations for the stories they want to tell. Some try to be more realistic than others, all fall short.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

On your reference to novels - is A Connecticut Yankee the first in that genre?

Could be! It's certainly the easiest early example to come up with, though I suspect there were probably novels or short stories with a similar formula before.

I haven't read enough of The Dying Earth to have the same confidence you do in talking about it. I do agree that it is not in the same genre as Bard, St George or Beowulf. I'm not sure I feel it's quite as sci-fi-ish either. There does seem to be a fairy-tale element to some of it.

I obviously haven't read all of it, so I may be missing something, but I didn't detect any fairy-tale-ness beyond the fact that a significant proportion of far future/post-apocalyptic SF in the midcentury through mid 1970s had a weirdly fairy-tale-ish vibe at times (c.f. Zardoz for a very obvious example, but a huge amount of it does, even things like The Triffids kind of do), which sometimes seems conscious and sometimes not. I would separate it from, say, The Book of the New Sun series by Gene Wolfe, which has a consciously fairy-tale/morality play approach at times caused by the (deeply unreliable*) narrator choosing to present certain events that way (and is from the '80s, by which point that approach had largely faded).

I agree with you that D&D can struggle, to an extent, with fairy-tale or fantasy logic - this is one reason why 4e D&D, which is an exception in this respect and doesn't struggle at all, is my favourite version.

Yes I very much liked that about 4E too. Fortunately there's no lack of TTRPGs now which can handle that, but it's a pity 5E didn't learn more there.

* = Not going to argue that, Severian contradicts himself a bunch, recontextualizes and revises events, and so on, but I've never come across an unreliable narrator somebody wasn't absolutely certain was utterly reliable and that's a separate discussion lol.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Both science fiction and fantasy simply come up with explanations for the stories they want to tell. Some try to be more realistic than others, all fall short.

There is a real difference in what we're talking about here though.

With science fiction, problems tend to get solved by Facts and Logic, backed by some amount of personal bravery and often genius logical leaps.

With fantasy, problems tend to get solved with Courage/Heart/Perseverance and Self-Sacrifice. Facts and logic rarely come into it.

Sure there's significant and increasing crossover, and SF often also has courage and sacrifice, but the classic example of the clash is "Why didn't the Eagles just fly the Hobbits to Mt. Doom?!". Whilst there are a bunch of decent reasons that people can dig up, the real reason is that fantasy, and Tolkien aren't about "facts, logic, optimization, doing it right" or the like, but about the people, and who they are, and what they believe, and how they act and so on. Doing an illogical/suboptimal-but-self-sacrificing thing is often the right thing in fantasy (which annoys the hell out of some people, for semi-understandable reasons - when I was younger it used to annoy the heck out of me).

I'm we're generalizing a lot here but there really are different approaches.

I'd also add that the "Owned by Facts and Logic" stories are often actually not very realistic. Even if they stick to relatively hard SF, the portrayal of the behaviour of humans or how the world works in a lot of that kind of sci-fi is often pretty bad and more about wish-fulfilment than how people really operate.

 

[pemerton]

I see it as the difference between constructing a believable world and telling a story. I don't construct my campaign as a story, I try to extrapolate what it could be like if magic and dragons were real.

For me, that last "I try . . ." makes no sense. If magic and dragons were real, what basis would there be for extrapolation? Because all the common sense and technical knowledge that guide extrapolation are already ruled out of bounds by the supposition that magic and dragons are real!

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I would think these questions about dragon slaying and the behavior of civilians, along with the existence of magic weapons that slay dragons to be squarely in the purview of the DM.

If I were in a campaign in which the populace raised an army to fight a dragon, I would just go with it as a player.

If I played in a campaign in which the people are scared and cowered and sought adventurers to do it because they could not to be in the realm of “ok, that happened.”

I would imagine some DMs would make either decision and I would not bat an eye as a player.

 

[Clint_L]

[deleted - way off topic]

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In AD&D there is an Arrow of Dragon Slaying.

In 4e D&D there is a skill challenge to turn the dragon into a minion (ie in the fiction, to set up the fatal shot).

Given that 5e claims to be a game of unlimited imagination like its predecessors, I assume that it too has a way of handling this. Not too far upthread, @AbdulAlhazred suggested that that would be getting the GM to agree. I don't know the system well enough to know what other ways there might be.

Well, I assume there is ALSO some sort of fiction that said GM will either invent or at least approve of. However, I am of the opinion that 5e doesn't specifically have a subsystem (like 4e's skill challenges and minions) that would model it in a rules sense. Obviously the GM can invent something, and its not HARD to do so, but it is certainly a 'ruling' and not a 'rule' in 5e parlance. Given that these rulings can be ANYTHING, one can simply fall back on "the GM can do anything" as an argument for infinite system flexibility. I think that kind of argument is not terribly useful in terms of discussing elements of 5e (or other RPGs) design. I'd note that in games that are, say, PbtA-based, like DW, there is more of a middle ground, but fundamentally the questions there are more like what we really ask in 4e, which is more "did the PCs achieve their intent, and what does that look like in fictional terms?" I'd think if there was a prophesy about a dragon slaying, first of all it would involve a PC as the slayer, and there would be some setup, similar to the whole 'Bard, arrow, thrush' thing in The Hobbit, perhaps.

 

[pemerton]

the questions there are more like what we really ask in 4e, which is more "did the PCs achieve their intent, and what does that look like in fictional terms?" I'd think if there was a prophesy about a dragon slaying, first of all it would involve a PC as the slayer, and there would be some setup, similar to the whole 'Bard, arrow, thrush' thing in The Hobbit, perhaps.

Right. Minion-ising a dragon seems like a complexity 4 or 5 skill challenge (given a dragon is a solo), which could involve everything from Bluff (to get it to leave its lair without ensuring every last vulnerable point is covered) to Nature (to speak to the thrushes who know the dragon's secret weak point) to History or Arcana (to know the true mystery and power of the Black Arrow).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Unfortunately, minion rules didn't make it into 5e.

Thank heavens, a dragon minionizing skills challenge did not make it into 5e rules...

Minions are not really needed in 5e thanks to bounded accuracy.

Instead of minions, I'd rather have a minion rule that you deal double weapon damage against enemies that are of CR < Level - 5 or so. Should always have been this way.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Right. Minion-ising a dragon seems like a complexity 4 or 5 skill challenge (given a dragon is a solo), which could involve everything from Bluff (to get it to leave its lair without ensuring every last vulnerable point is covered) to Nature (to speak to the thrushes who know the dragon's secret weak point) to History or Arcana (to know the true mystery and power of the Black Arrow).

While that sounds like a good idea, it does not need minionizing. You can attribute the instant kill on the black arrow and vulnarability in that certain spot.
Question is: how do you treat the attack roll? Is it harder to aim on tge weak spot? Seems totally anticlimatic to win the skill challenge just to miss with the arrow...

Help action? Inspiration? Bard*ic inspiration?
Or just leacer the to hit roll out? This would turn the dragon fight in just a story.

 

[pemerton]

While that sounds like a good idea, it does not need minionizing. You can attribute the instant kill on the black arrow and vulnarability in that certain spot.
Question is: how do you treat the attack roll? Is it harder to aim on tge weak spot? Seems totally anticlimatic to win the skill challenge just to miss with the arrow...

Help action? Inspiration? Bard*ic inspiration?
Or just leacer the to hit roll out? This would turn the dragon fight in just a story.

4e doesn't have rules for aiming at weak spots, beyond the use of relevant powers. Which would certainly help in a skill challenge to minion-ise the dragon!

I don't know of any other process in 4e for achieving an instant kill against an Ancient Dragon.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

4e doesn't have rules for aiming at weak spots, beyond the use of relevant powers. Which would certainly help in a skill challenge to minion-ise the dragon!

I don't know of any other process in 4e for achieving an instant kill against an Ancient Dragon.

I have not seen a skill challenge that minionizes solo enemies either...

 

[Maxperson]

So if you want to interpret "abandoning the class" as "losing abilities", which abilities do you lose, exactly? ASI's are class abilities according to the chart, do you lose those? Do they lose Fighting Style? Extra Attack? You gain 1d10 Hit Dice per paladin level, according to page 84. Do I lose all my proficiencies granted by my class?

Strange that if this was ever the intent, that the PHB couldn't be bothered to outline which abilities should be lost by "abandoning" the class, instead of forcing the DM to make a ruling about each one. Or does a classless character become an NPC, like the Soldier or Gladiator? Do you stop being able to play your character entirely because you violated your Oath?

If that was the case, the PHB could certainly have explained these things. Or the DMG could have a section about it.

The 3e PHB had a section for classes that could "lose" their abilities in the class description. If there's no guideline explaining how to massively rewrite a character due to failing to meet some obligation, I'm going to go with Occam's Razor on this one and assume the simplest version; ie, you have to change your Oath/God/Patron or start taking levels in some other class.

If I were to do lost abilities, I'd say that the paladin loses are things granted by the divinity. Lay on hands, aura of courage, divine spellcasting, smiles, etc.

In order not to gimp the paladin into uselessness, the best way to do that is just say that the paladin becomes a champion fighter of the same level. It's not a perfect solution, because the PC will suddenly develop the ability to Action Surge and such, but it's a better option than turning the paladin into something much worse than a fighter.

 

[Oofta]

There is a real difference in what we're talking about here though.

With science fiction, problems tend to get solved by Facts and Logic, backed by some amount of personal bravery and often genius logical leaps.

With fantasy, problems tend to get solved with Courage/Heart/Perseverance and Self-Sacrifice. Facts and logic rarely come into it.

Sure there's significant and increasing crossover, and SF often also has courage and sacrifice, but the classic example of the clash is "Why didn't the Eagles just fly the Hobbits to Mt. Doom?!". Whilst there are a bunch of decent reasons that people can dig up, the real reason is that fantasy, and Tolkien aren't about "facts, logic, optimization, doing it right" or the like, but about the people, and who they are, and what they believe, and how they act and so on. Doing an illogical/suboptimal-but-self-sacrificing thing is often the right thing in fantasy (which annoys the hell out of some people, for semi-understandable reasons - when I was younger it used to annoy the heck out of me).

I'm we're generalizing a lot here but there really are different approaches.

I'd also add that the "Owned by Facts and Logic" stories are often actually not very realistic. Even if they stick to relatively hard SF, the portrayal of the behaviour of humans or how the world works in a lot of that kind of sci-fi is often pretty bad and more about wish-fulfilment than how people really operate.

I guess I've just never seen that much of a distinction. There have been plenty of both genres that go either way. Sci-fi or fantasy, it's just a setting for a story. Sci-fi is more likely to have the protagonist be a scientist, but many times they're just doing what I would call magic science. In other words they're throwing around some pseudo-science words but in reality it's no more "real" than casting a spell. Some authors try to base their fiction on science such as Andy Weir, but even then they get a lot wrong while relying on what can be best called speculative science.

Even fiction The Expanse, which gets a lot right such as how to create the sense of gravity by using acceleration or a giant rotating generation ship still has to invent a techno magic propulsion system for people to zip around the solar system. Then of course there's the alien technology that just breaks physics.

But in the end it's still just down to a group of scrappy heroes to save the day and drive the story. Just like in fantasy. The trappings are different but the stories and results bear more similarities than differences.

 

[Maxperson]

No darkcvision in 5e is designed to obliviate the need for light. This just does not happen often & the vast majority of things that might make the passive perception matter tend to make the GM look adversarial & trigger player vrs gm.

If 5e darkvison was designed to negate the need for light, the designers failed miserably. They put in a rule that visual perception checks are at disadvantage when relying on darkvison. Passive perception gets hit with a -5(I think that's the result of disadvantage).

Light still gets used, because the players don't want to get surprised, miss secret doors and get hit by traps. Or for that matter, miss clues and treasure.

 

[Maxperson]

Ranged attacks have disadvantage over a certain range. The dragon also does not have to attack in the bright light of the day but in the night.

So most probably it takes not 20, but 400 peasants for a single hit of 9 damage.

So now dragons have to hide in darkness out of fear of the peasants? Some "mighty" dragon that is.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it is a feature, not a bug. This way, there is a reason why men group up in villages and can still exist. Protection from wild animals has always been one of the reasons for grouping up.

Animals. Not dragons.

 

[Redwizard007]

Thank heavens, a dragon minionizing skills challenge did not make it into 5e rules...

100% with you on this one.

Minions are not really needed in 5e thanks to bounded accuracy.

Completely disagree here. Using minion-esque enemies allows the fantasy of cutting through mobs of mooks, and it allows adding more monsters to an encounter without turning combat into a slog. In those aspects, no other edition was superior to 4e. (Yes, I did just vomit a little after admitting that.)

Instead of minions, I'd rather have a minion rule that you deal double weapon damage against enemies that are of CR < Level - 5 or so. Should always have been this way.

That is also an elegant solution to the same issues that minion rules solved, but isn't it just easier to say that they die after 1 hit?

 

[Maxperson]

Then you are fighting a strawman.

The claim being tested is “an ancient dragon cannot reliably take out an average town of 10,000 people”.

Which they absolutely can, to the extent that it is necessary to load the claim with assumptions to provide a counterpoint:

• the dragon will attack during the day despite having darkvision;
• the townspeople will all have longbows;
• the townspeople will be able to organize an attack in the time between the dragon is sighted and the moment it begins breathing fire on the town;
• despite having genius-level intelligence, the dragon will not use “tactics” whereas the townsfolk, despite having to coordinate among 100+ people, will.

So the dragon has to cower under the cover of darkness and then flee before the armed groups can gather.

Some "mighty" dragon that is.

 

[Maxperson]

What strawman? I rejected your idea that lords have never had an armed citizenry. Historically there have been exceptions. The reason the populace would be armed and trained in effective weaponry may change in a fantasy world, especially one with a sufficient number of monsters running around.

I also stated that it's likely that small villages and towns would be hard pressed to defend themselves. I've never stated otherwise so this supposed strawman goes poof like it never existed. Because it didn't.

On the other hand, just because we don't have real world anti-dragon weaponry it doesn't mean they wouldn't have been invented in a world with dragons. In addition if a dragon becomes too much of a threat to a kingdom I see no reason why it wouldn't be considered war. A dragon will likely not survive an attack by an army given a sufficient number of archers. That has nothing to do with an individual town defending itself, it's a kingdom protecting it's own.

So this supposed strawman is of your own construction.

I also love how "d&d has different physics" and "d&d is fantasy" are the mantras up until this debate, and then it suddenly changes to "d&d peasants won't be armed or trained because real world peasants weren't." Despite the fact that d&d monsters would necessitate it since kingdoms couldn't afford a standing army large enough to protect every village and town.