D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[EzekielRaiden]

It's why I stopped replying. I just don't care enough about it to argue about it anymore.

Realism in fantasy (as you understand) is a good thing IMO. Death saves (vs. players getting to choose "to let their PC die") is part of that.

If you want to continue it, more power to you!

When have I ever said that realism is something horrible to be gotten rid of?

The amount of hyperbole being thrown at me in this thread is insane. I'm killing all possible stakes! Even though I'm explicitly saying there are better options. I'm attacking realism as some horrible bad thing! Even though I have not said and would never say that.

It would really help your case if folks stopped pretending that death was the one and only thing that ever mattered. That death is somehow the ONLY consequence of "ultimate" worth.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. In a way that actively conflicts with and denies reality. That's the whole point. It absolutely IS a meta-decision, specifically for that reason.

No.

"Some scholars propose that certain examples of berserker rage had been induced voluntarily by the consumption of drugs such as hallucinogenic mushrooms, massive amounts of alcohol, or a mixture only known as 'butotens.' This is much debated but the theory is further supported by the discovery of seeds belonging to black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger) in a Viking grave that was unearthed near Fyrkat, Denmark in 1977. An analysis of the symptoms caused by Hyoscyamus niger are also similar to the symptoms ascribed to the berserker state, which suggest it may have been used to generate their warlike mood. Other explanations for the berserker's madness that have been put forward include self-induced hysteria, epilepsy, or mental illness, among other causes."

You can see that it does not do so in a way that actively conflicts and denies reality. It does so in a way that simulates certain aspects of reality. They embraced the theory that rage(berserking) was voluntary/self-induced and simulated that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What you are calling Author stance is something I am used to being seen called Director stance:

*In Director stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.​

Author and Director could be blurry, but the usual distinction I saw was that Director was focused on the overall game rather than just your own character. It was essentially taking a limited GMing view of the process.

One reason I don't find stance especially interesting as any sort of litmus test is that it's very common to find people who insist they are Actor-only to also use Author-stance (that is, they don't distinguish deciding as the character would and *deciding for some meta-reason and then retroactively motivating the character) and to also use Director-stance (eg they make up stuff that their PC knows or remembers, normally related to the PC's background, and thereby determine "feature of the world separate from their characters", namely, whatever it is that the PC knows about or remembers).

I'm just hard-pressed to see that particular definition of Actor stance as distinguishable from the usage of IC stance I saw when stances were first being used as a terminology years ago. The whole distinguishing trait of IC stance was it did not operate on anything outside of what the character would know.

(I'd guess this is a case where later usage abandoned IC stance and rolled it in with Actor, but that seems less useful to me).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's not about what is likely to happen. It's about what can happen, what could logically make sense and follow from events in the setting. It's also about avoiding as much as possible taking actions as a player that aren't from your PCs perspective or within the scope of that PCs knowledge.

I'm getting very tired of the, "all or nothing" realism argument.

Goes with their "all or nothing" immersion argument!

It is just silly. There are of course all sort of concessions and limitation in games, but that we cannot do something 100% doesn't mean we just forget about it. In game design and gameplay it is good idea to have goals, things we want from the game. Then we can design things so that we get close to those things.

I've been trying to eat more healthily, but as I cannot cut all sugar from my diet, I might just as well give up, and have glazed doughnuts for lunch!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which is kinda my point. The real world adventures feature very long, extended periods of boredom and tedium punctuated by very brief periods of terror and excitement.

Your point about the dire penguins is exactly on point. The dire penguins attack, not because of any real world inspiration, but, because we want an exciting game. And far too many DM's forget this. The real world isn't all that exciting most of the time. Yes, we're not writing a novel. I don't mean that. But, the processes for creating an entertaining story and creating an entertaining game are far more similar than different. And, agian, far too many DM's IME, ignore things like pacing and story beats and whatnot, and sacrifice all that on the altar of "realism" which, frankly, creates games that are mind numbingly frustrating and boring.

Well, the problem is they're attempting to play to a subset of players similar to people who like genuine survival computer games, that really get into a certain degree of minutia. I suspect the error is in assuming that subset is larger than it is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, as I've said several times: Level Up isn't accessible to me. I would further argue isn't accessible to at least a plurality of people who play 5e, because, as a thread we have on this very forum has recently demonstrated, there are quite a few folks with a strident antipathy for anything that isn't 100% pure first-party content. Hell, even much of first-party content is considered suspect the way a lot of people act! I've seen more than a few people at absolute best giving the stink-eye to the Artificer simply because it's an additional class and not present in the PHB.

The case isn't overstated for folks stuck in as-written 5e, regardless of when the books were published.

That is their choice, for the most part. For the few folks who legitimately can't play any 5e but WotC's (maybe they have to play AL or nothing), I feel genuinely sorry that is the case for them, but how many people are both trapped by WotC and actually have your problem with casters and martials as expressed in D&D 5e?

I feel like your issue is that circumstances prevent you from playing exactly the game you want. I can relate, even if we obviously want very different games. Hopefully you can find an acceptable compromise like I have.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fair enough. I've seen it stumble in other non-D&D games as well, though. I will concede that it is not automatically a problem. Can we agree then that it is a risky design choice? That is, while it sounds like a nearly-universally-good idea, in practice it is actually a difficult commitment that one might not actually be able to pull off.

Well, I'd argue that almost all places it goes off the rails are because of other structural features of the game systems that make it hard, the commonest one being exception based design in general. While D&D and its kin are the poster children for that, they aren't the only cases of it in the hobby. The less a game does that, usually the less problems I've seen with PCs and NPCs/monsters being built to the same metric.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When have I ever said that realism is something horrible to be gotten rid of?

The amount of hyperbole being thrown at me in this thread is insane. I'm killing all possible stakes! Even though I'm explicitly saying there are better options. I'm attacking realism as some horrible bad thing! Even though I have not said and would never say that.

It would really help your case if folks stopped pretending that death was the one and only thing that ever mattered. That death is somehow the ONLY consequence of "ultimate" worth.

I don't think it's the only consequence that matters. But I also don't want to play in a D&D-style game where it's off the table. Other games? Sure.

 

[Maxperson]

You want me to actually name names? Fine. I hate doing that, but you have demanded I do so, so I will. The main two I can remember off the top of my head are @Lanefan and @Maxperson. The former has explicitly said to me, despite my efforts to find any other avenue, that a DM-player arms race is not only good and proper but absolutely correct, and that players actively misbehaving for their own jollies, regardless of the consequences that has for other people at the table, is their inherent right. He actively rejected any notion of needing to be a "responsible adult" at the game table.

Don't lump me in with that group. I've always said that DM's should not be adversarial. And I actively avoid arms races.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, the problem is they're attempting to play to a subset of players similar to people who like genuine survival computer games, that really get into a certain degree of minutia. I suspect the error is in assuming that subset is larger than it is.

Who's they? Sounds like a fun group of players!