D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

This sounds like a mere semantic quibble. You can 'attribute' it to anything, and I agree, you don't absolutely NEED formal minion rules to do it, but it doesn't hurt since they provide a ready-made framework for exactly what you describe, a black arrow which slays the beast in a single hit.

As for the anti-climactic part, yes, that's true. Now with a 4e SC you have to hit 3 failures (and you may even get a chance to reverse one). I personally would find the SC format more flexible, as it allows to incorporate any sort of skill naturally and isn't particularly intended to represent only one single brief instant in time (though I think combat doesn't have to be that restrictive either). Still, once you have broken from the standard combat model, why not use something closer to an SC? Call it 'clocks' if you want, or whatever. Its just a way of regulating how many checks have to happen and what the DCs are likely to be.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This sounds like a mere semantic quibble. You can 'attribute' it to anything, and I agree, you don't absolutely NEED formal minion rules to do it, but it doesn't hurt since they provide a ready-made framework for exactly what you describe, a black arrow which slays the beast in a single hit.

A minion could be killed by anyone on a 20. So 20 bowmen should do it instead of 1 Bard?

Yes. Semantic quibble. I think going with vulnerability on the spot and Bard just being a great archer should work well enough if we put in enough magic damage. But that is just me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think this solution is better because otherwise minions are more easily killed with twf than great weapons. Also area damage is better handled.

i don't like it becuse it defeats the "ease of use" if you still need to track all those hp.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, I just think you're wrong about this. Let's look at Star Trek. Although far from hard sci-fi, it still has used its platform to explore issues of how humanity would interact with alien species, the implications of artificial intelligence, whether emotion or reason-based decision making is superior...I could go on and on. Plenty of Star Trek episodes are extrapolative.

Fantasy just doesn't tend to do that. Fantasy comes from romance, tales of knights on supernatural quests, and from (more interestingly, IMO) foundational myths. Although both genres can feature heroic, idealized characters, fantasy has a tendency to present characters that are "chosen one" type figures in the Arthurian (or Jesus) mode. And fantasy looks backwards for inspiration, to quasi-medieval settings with kings and queens.

There are some writers who use fantasy to explore interesting themes. In a novel like Tigana, Guy Gabriel Kay subverts the trope of the Dark Lord by humanizing the villain and telling half the story from his perspective. Game of Thrones is still backwards looking but combines fantasy tropes with historical inspiration to explore the darker sides of human motivations and ambitions. But both those authors are consciously working against standard fantasy tropes, to some extent.

As a genre, sci-fi allows the scope for authors to take chances. I had to think hard to come up with examples of fantasy novels that challenged my preconceptions. I could give you a list a mile long of science fiction novels. As I wrote earlier, challenging our preconceptions is at the heart of science-fiction; it's sci-fi's original raison d'être. That is just not the case for fantasy as a genre. It is an overwhelmingly safe genre, full of benevolent kings and righteous causes.

Fantasy at its most powerful focuses on those hero's journey tropes, on the common myths and aspirations of humanity. That's what Tolkien does so well; that's what George Lucas does too. I would argue that Westerns tend to fall into this category as well. I argue that science fiction is more naturally aligned with horror, as a genre that aims to subvert and unsettle. That's why I think the difference between science fiction and fantasy is foundational.

I don't like power-gaming precisely because it feels like that kind of Patrick Rothfuss-style fantasy where the protagonist is a prodigy at everything. I just don't enjoy that. I think that only works if it is executed by a talent in the league of Tolkien, who is work at the level of myth. But I can't get any kind of relatable or interesting characters from that. I enjoy the trappings of fantasy, but I want the characters to be believable, imperfect, and just trying to do their best. That's why I won't touch alignments with a ten foot pole - I think the whole concept is fantasy morality on steroids. That's why I hate when players start from "what would be an optimal character" and insist that they start with "what is an interesting want, need, and flaw?"

Here's an interesting difference in perspective. From the standpoint of a system like PbtA genre is meaningless. I mean, it isn't meaningless in terms of the specific game you are playing, it will heavily inform the fictional aspect of what moves you make, possibly when they are legal, etc. However, in any sort of fundamental sense its all about the characters, period. You could definitely, for example, make a PbtA cyber-punk game that explores the questions of what it means to be human in the face of technology which fundamentally alters our nature. That might inform various genre-specific game mechanics (moves probably, as well as playbook authorship). It would probably also motivate the introduction of some genre/agenda specific GM agenda/techniques. So the game will play differently from Dungeon World, but only at a fairly superficial level. The characters will still experience that same sort of snowballing action/consequence/more action snowballing dramatic story arc kind of play in each.

And this comports well with every theory I have ever heard of explaining how literature and other storytelling works. Genre is a fairly pervasive element, but not core to story. Sci Fi and Fantasy authors are ultimately dealing in the same currency. The Pilot in The Cold Equations faces the same questions of life and death and what his humanity and his duty are as Ged in A Wizard of Earthsea. Granting one is a short story and the other a series of novels, but I could easily see Ged's story transposed into one of transhumanism and alien contact without it being altered in any really fundamental way.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

i don't like it becuse it defeats the "ease of use" if you still need to track all those hp.

So everyone has their preferences.
Maybe giving minions 4 mp and you deal damage/10 round up with each hit.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So everyone has their preferences.
Maybe giving minions 4 mp and you deal damage/10 round up with each hit.

I don't know everyone I know that likes minions thinks the lack of HP tracking is the most important feature... doing math seems to be the reverse of what I would want.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

That's a problem that exists on paper but gets resisted by the social contract. If those things actually matter it makes the GM start looking adversarial & maybe even a killer GM. The system itself takes things a step further from there to ensure they don't matter by making magic items "optional" & designing monsters so they don't have any feat or magic item expectations factored into their math leaving the players at no loss should they "miss" those secret doors.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't know everyone I know that likes minions thinks the lack of HP tracking is the most important feature... doing math seems to be the reverse of what I would want.

Maybe you are right. I just don't like the rules as they were implemented...

At least two hp would have been great. So they could be bloodied...

 

[Oofta]

Well, I just think you're wrong about this. Let's look at Star Trek. Although far from hard sci-fi, it still has used its platform to explore issues of how humanity would interact with alien species, the implications of artificial intelligence, whether emotion or reason-based decision making is superior...I could go on and on. Plenty of Star Trek episodes are extrapolative.

Fantasy just doesn't tend to do that. Fantasy comes from romance, tales of knights on supernatural quests, and from (more interestingly, IMO) foundational myths. Although both genres can feature heroic, idealized characters, fantasy has a tendency to present characters that are "chosen one" type figures in the Arthurian (or Jesus) mode. And fantasy looks backwards for inspiration, to quasi-medieval settings with kings and queens.

There are some writers who use fantasy to explore interesting themes. In a novel like Tigana, Guy Gabriel Kay subverts the trope of the Dark Lord by humanizing the villain and telling half the story from his perspective. Game of Thrones is still backwards looking but combines fantasy tropes with historical inspiration to explore the darker sides of human motivations and ambitions. But both those authors are consciously working against standard fantasy tropes, to some extent.

As a genre, sci-fi allows the scope for authors to take chances. I had to think hard to come up with examples of fantasy novels that challenged my preconceptions. I could give you a list a mile long of science fiction novels. As I wrote earlier, challenging our preconceptions is at the heart of science-fiction; it's sci-fi's original raison d'être. That is just not the case for fantasy as a genre. It is an overwhelmingly safe genre, full of benevolent kings and righteous causes.

Fantasy at its most powerful focuses on those hero's journey tropes, on the common myths and aspirations of humanity. That's what Tolkien does so well; that's what George Lucas does too. I would argue that Westerns tend to fall into this category as well. I argue that science fiction is more naturally aligned with horror, as a genre that aims to subvert and unsettle. That's why I think the difference between science fiction and fantasy is foundational.

I don't like power-gaming precisely because it feels like that kind of Patrick Rothfuss-style fantasy where the protagonist is a prodigy at everything. I just don't enjoy that. I think that only works if it is executed by a talent in the league of Tolkien, who is work at the level of myth. But I can't get any kind of relatable or interesting characters from that. I enjoy the trappings of fantasy, but I want the characters to be believable, imperfect, and just trying to do their best. That's why I won't touch alignments with a ten foot pole - I think the whole concept is fantasy morality on steroids. That's why I hate when players start from "what would be an optimal character" and insist that they start with "what is an interesting want, need, and flaw?"

I guess I don't see how the themes of sci-fi matter all that much. The stories we tell are up to us.

The stories authors choose to tell don't affect games. I can ask questions of what it's like to be human, etc with D&D if I want whether that's through lycanthropy, does it make sense to ally wit the devil you know or any other number of ideas.

 

[James Gasik]

That's a problem that exists on paper but gets resisted by the social contract. If those things actually matter it makes the GM start looking adversarial & maybe even a killer GM. The system itself takes things a step further from there to ensure they don't matter by making magic items "optional" & designing monsters so they don't have any feat or magic item expectations factored into their math leaving the players at no loss should they "miss" those secret doors.

This is such an odd statement. Of all the rules in the game, why would players revolt at someone enforcing the rules for darkvision?

People complaining about darkvision is super common, often calling for it to be removed from tons of races, saying it prevents certain kinds of play, etc., when, in actuality, the ability isn't really that good- sure, if you're plunged into darkness, you're not blind, just half-blind, so I guess that's kind of advantage, but to me, it's more like some ribbon ability.

You're going to want light. If anything, I find the current iteration of Darkvision to be more problematic for monsters than players- suddenly trying to run adventures in lightless areas like the Underdark just don't work because now the monsters are going to want light so as not to have things sneaking up on them!

Now some people are like "well yeah, but once the Rogue gets expertise in Perception, they don't care about -5 passive perception"*, to which I'm like, ok, so maybe they won't get surprised. Unfortunately, that does nothing for the rest of the party, as you determine surprise by comparing Stealth to the passive Perception of all characters, not just the party spotter.

And if the Rogue is scouting ahead of the party, well, if they do get detected (say by some other special sense), that could go pretty badly for the Rogue, lol.

*Also, I find this claim suspect. You'd have to be Tier 5 before Expertise makes -5 irrelevant, and it's not like Wisdom is a high priority ability score for Rogues. So usually there's something else going on here, likely a Feat like Dungeon Delver or Observant. And I've run WotC published adventures with some pretty high DC's for secret doors and traps, to where you don't really want disadvantage when trying to find them.