D&D General DM's: How transparent are you with game mechanics "in world?"

[Maxperson]

Yes, but are you winning if you match par? Or did you just achieve the average result expected of the course?

You win. Par for a golf course is 70-72. The score of the average golfer is 96.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You win. Par for a golf course is 70-72. The score of the average golfer is 96.

And so if you played and got 70, you won the game. What happens if you score 50? You super-win? If your personal average is 60, and you get a 72, did you still win?

Again, I find the idea of "winning" golf to be a bit silly. It seems to apply as much as winning does to DnD.

 

[Lyxen]

Again, I find the idea of "winning" golf to be a bit silly. It seems to apply as much as winning does to DnD.

Golf is by nature a very individualistic game. Basically, you can play against the par, totally on your own, trying to get better. Of course, you can also compete against someone else. So in a sense, yes, you can win, against the par, against yourself, against someone else.

But there is zero element of collaborativeness, for me it's near the total opposite of the scale compared to D&D. Yes, you can play D&D competitively, but it's really not my conception of the game, and neither is it that of the developers of 5e (I won't say all the editions, because 3e was designed to be competitive, and you can feel it in the design).

 

[Maxperson]

And so if you played and got 70, you won the game. What happens if you score 50? You super-win? If your personal average is 60, and you get a 72, did you still win?

Again, I find the idea of "winning" golf to be a bit silly. It seems to apply as much as winning does to DnD.

In sports the person who scores the best, wins. So it's a "super win" I suppose if you get a 50 and choose to look at it that way. And yes, if you hit par, but didn't do as well as you usually did you still win. That's what par means. Winning at golf is no more or less silly than winning at football or tennis or any other sport. The only real difference is that you can win solo.

 

[FrozenNorth]

You are very much ignoring the point. The point Lanefan and Maxperson are making isn't that every path to power must be open to the PCs, but that paths of power must be potentially open. The example with Orcus is actually the prime example here, you say that the DM declares that Orcus won't make a PC a Chosen One, and then act like that refutes their point. But it doesn't. In fact, I'd say Max and Lanefan both would agree that it is the DMs prerogative to have Orcus deny the PCs access to his power. The point is though, that if the PCs DID gain his favor, and become his chosen one, then they would gain those powers.

I think the question is “To what extent?” To take a concrete example, the bandit captain enemy is pretty much a 10th level fighter.

Except if you were to actually build a 10th level fighter, it would differ from the captain in some important ways. Fighters are a d10 class, the captain has d8. Fighters get proficiencies in 2 saves, the captain has 3. To do 3 attacks in a round, the fighter needs both an Action and their Bonus Action, the captain just uses their Action. The Fighter has Action Surge and Second Wind, the captain has neither.

These changes make the captain much easier to run, particularly if the DM is also running 3 bandits and their pet guard drake and making sure the players don’t screw up any rules.

Overall, to me, this approach is a net positive, and one that we see in 5e for all humanoid enemies.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Golf is by nature a very individualistic game. Basically, you can play against the par, totally on your own, trying to get better. Of course, you can also compete against someone else. So in a sense, yes, you can win, against the par, against yourself, against someone else.

But there is zero element of collaborativeness, for me it's near the total opposite of the scale compared to D&D. Yes, you can play D&D competitively, but it's really not my conception of the game, and neither is it that of the developers of 5e (I won't say all the editions, because 3e was designed to be competitive, and you can feel it in the design).

That has nothing to do with the point. Max claimed that all sports are about winning.

Golf is a sport. It isn't about winning. In that it is not about winning, it is like DnD.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In sports the person who scores the best, wins. So it's a "super win" I suppose if you get a 50 and choose to look at it that way. And yes, if you hit par, but didn't do as well as you usually did you still win. That's what par means. Winning at golf is no more or less silly than winning at football or tennis or any other sport. The only real difference is that you can win solo.

No, that isn't how it works, because if it did then most people would "lose" golf, and that isn't how most people would describe playing golf. Since your view isn't shared by the majority of people in the sport, then I don't understand why you think you can override their understanding of their sport.

Not all sports are about winning. In fact, many people will tell you that they don't participate in a non-professional sport because they have a desire to win, simply because the game is fun.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think the question is “To what extent?” To take a concrete example, the bandit captain enemy is pretty much a 10th level fighter.

Except if you were to actually build a 10th level fighter, it would differ from the captain in some important ways. Fighters are a d10 class, the captain has d8. Fighters get proficiencies in 2 saves, the captain has 3. To do 3 attacks in a round, the fighter needs both an Action and their Bonus Action, the captain just uses their Action. The Fighter has Action Surge and Second Wind, the captain has neither.

These changes make the captain much easier to run, particularly if the DM is also running 3 bandits and their pet guard drake and making sure the players don’t screw up any rules.

Overall, to me, this approach is a net positive, and one that we see in 5e for all humanoid enemies.

Not to the extent of being identical, but it is actually nearly trivial to copy the Bandit Captain. Extra attack at level 11, as you noted allows the PC to get 3 attacks. And a feat at any level gives a third save if you take resilient. The PC is perfectly capable of matching the power of the Bandit Captain.

The point isn't that they must be identical in all ways, but that there is a path to getting those abilities. More attacks and more saves are things PCs can easily get.

And the PCs getting MORE stuff isn't even close to a problem. In fact, it helps show that they are more highly trained than the Bandit Captain, which is a boon, because they should be.

 

[Krachek]

I am not going to allow a player to choose to be a mind flayer as their race.

I just don't see how that creates inconsistencies in the fiction of the world.

I don’t check who write the first sentence, but having a mind flayer player can be an amazing story arc. We can imagine a deficient breeding where the host mind partially survive, the character been cast away or let to die and than manage to survive. A amazing plot to explore and develop the mind flayed world,

 

[Maxperson]

No, that isn't how it works, because if it did then most people would "lose" golf, and that isn't how most people would describe playing golf. Since your view isn't shared by the majority of people in the sport, then I don't understand why you think you can override their understanding of their sport.

Not all sports are about winning. In fact, many people will tell you that they don't participate in a non-professional sport because they have a desire to win, simply because the game is fun.

"Its scoring is similar to match play, except each player compares their hole score to the hole's par rating instead of the score of another player. The player "wins" the hole if they score a birdie or better, they "lose" the hole if they score a bogey or worse, and they "halve" the hole by scoring par."

Google tells me that you are wrong. It also tells me that I was wrong. Par isn't winning, either. You have to beat par to win.