Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DM Says No Powergaming?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8870717" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>But, again, the critical thing is that failing a social roll almost never results in losing your ability to keep playing the character. Even failing a complex social scenario almost completely doesn't. Because the main way to take away the character after a bad social encounter....is to have them get into a fight. Which they're already optimized for.</p><p></p><p>Keep in mind, I <em>do</em> care about this sort of thing, and as far as I can tell I have done a fairly good job of getting my players to care too. I'm talking about players who <em>don't</em> care. Who only care about survival value. How do you give those flopped social rolls bite? How do you make it so they have consequences the player will care about? You must threaten their ability to keep playing their character. How do you do that? By threatening bodily harm or the loss of material goods. How do you cause bodily harm or take away material goods? <em>Violence</em>.</p><p></p><p>5e, like most editions of D&D,* simply doesn't offer grounds under which serious threats to the character's wellbeing can be <em>mechanically</em> articulated outside of combat. And because they can't be mechanically articulated, simply <em>inflicted</em> as a punishment, they're going to come across as arbitrary and punitive in many, perhaps most, situations. Optimizing for combat means optimizing for dealing with the most significant punitive thing the DM can do besides rug-pulling and "rocks fall, everyone dies" type stuff, which would be dealt with via the social contract regardless.</p><p></p><p>That's why you don't see a more mixed presentation of this stuff--why it almost always centers on combat, even though there are lots of things to optimize for. 5e, like most editions of D&D,* doesn't actually support using it for situations where the greatest threats the player characters might face have nothing to do with physical violence.</p><p></p><p>*There's a reason I use this phrasing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It took me some time to ruminate on this, but no, you are not correct here. The rules are <em>not</em> considered more important than the story--or at least that wasn't the intent. Nor was the intent to have the fiction "molded" around the rules. Because that, again, puts the rules absolutely, exclusively first, and that's incorrect.</p><p></p><p>The idea is that the two are <em>simultaneous</em>--and that you should, ideally, be able to think about things in narrative terms and derive correct mechanical conclusions, or in mechanical terms and derive correct narrative conclusions. Hence why I love the LoH structure--because, while I have no actual documentation to back it up, I am completely confident that they sat down and asked, "How would we make a power that has the Paladin sacrificing some of their own health to heal someone else?"</p><p></p><p>If you have the fundamental underlying math down, so that it really, <em>truly works</em>, in straightforward and well-explained ways, then the difference between thinking about things in mechanical terms and thinking about them in narrative terms blurs, and hopefully disappears entirely. There ceases to be any meaning to the idea that "rules come first" or "fiction comes first." To think about the rules is, by definition and without separation, to be thinking about the fiction; and to think about the fiction is, by definition and without separation, to be thinking about the rules.</p><p></p><p>This is why I am such a fan of both Dungeon World and 4e and its relatives (like 13A.) They reach the same point from opposite directions. DW abides in the fiction and very, very carefully constructed and tested its rules until following them was, in all but highly unusual cases, identical to whatever the fiction actually called for. 4e built a robust, scalable rules framework, and then carefully constructed rules elements so that using them is (or should be) the same as telling a story about them. Rules only "came first" for 4e in the sense that the mathematics were nailed down by the designers and made consistent <em>in order that</em> storytelling would be as close to 1:1 equivalent with invoking the rules. Once you, the end user, are invoking them? Telling a story should be using the rules and using the rules should be telling a story. Consistently.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8870717, member: 6790260"] But, again, the critical thing is that failing a social roll almost never results in losing your ability to keep playing the character. Even failing a complex social scenario almost completely doesn't. Because the main way to take away the character after a bad social encounter....is to have them get into a fight. Which they're already optimized for. Keep in mind, I [I]do[/I] care about this sort of thing, and as far as I can tell I have done a fairly good job of getting my players to care too. I'm talking about players who [I]don't[/I] care. Who only care about survival value. How do you give those flopped social rolls bite? How do you make it so they have consequences the player will care about? You must threaten their ability to keep playing their character. How do you do that? By threatening bodily harm or the loss of material goods. How do you cause bodily harm or take away material goods? [I]Violence[/I]. 5e, like most editions of D&D,* simply doesn't offer grounds under which serious threats to the character's wellbeing can be [I]mechanically[/I] articulated outside of combat. And because they can't be mechanically articulated, simply [I]inflicted[/I] as a punishment, they're going to come across as arbitrary and punitive in many, perhaps most, situations. Optimizing for combat means optimizing for dealing with the most significant punitive thing the DM can do besides rug-pulling and "rocks fall, everyone dies" type stuff, which would be dealt with via the social contract regardless. That's why you don't see a more mixed presentation of this stuff--why it almost always centers on combat, even though there are lots of things to optimize for. 5e, like most editions of D&D,* doesn't actually support using it for situations where the greatest threats the player characters might face have nothing to do with physical violence. *There's a reason I use this phrasing. It took me some time to ruminate on this, but no, you are not correct here. The rules are [I]not[/I] considered more important than the story--or at least that wasn't the intent. Nor was the intent to have the fiction "molded" around the rules. Because that, again, puts the rules absolutely, exclusively first, and that's incorrect. The idea is that the two are [I]simultaneous[/I]--and that you should, ideally, be able to think about things in narrative terms and derive correct mechanical conclusions, or in mechanical terms and derive correct narrative conclusions. Hence why I love the LoH structure--because, while I have no actual documentation to back it up, I am completely confident that they sat down and asked, "How would we make a power that has the Paladin sacrificing some of their own health to heal someone else?" If you have the fundamental underlying math down, so that it really, [I]truly works[/I], in straightforward and well-explained ways, then the difference between thinking about things in mechanical terms and thinking about them in narrative terms blurs, and hopefully disappears entirely. There ceases to be any meaning to the idea that "rules come first" or "fiction comes first." To think about the rules is, by definition and without separation, to be thinking about the fiction; and to think about the fiction is, by definition and without separation, to be thinking about the rules. This is why I am such a fan of both Dungeon World and 4e and its relatives (like 13A.) They reach the same point from opposite directions. DW abides in the fiction and very, very carefully constructed and tested its rules until following them was, in all but highly unusual cases, identical to whatever the fiction actually called for. 4e built a robust, scalable rules framework, and then carefully constructed rules elements so that using them is (or should be) the same as telling a story about them. Rules only "came first" for 4e in the sense that the mathematics were nailed down by the designers and made consistent [I]in order that[/I] storytelling would be as close to 1:1 equivalent with invoking the rules. Once you, the end user, are invoking them? Telling a story should be using the rules and using the rules should be telling a story. Consistently. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DM Says No Powergaming?
Top