Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9285341" data-attributes="member: 6790260">If the point was "this was done in a novel, thus it is fine to do in a game" and then someone points out all the ways that there are things that are fine to do in novels that would be terrible to do in a game...you have not established that the thing is fine to do in a game.Note, I am not saying it isn't fine to do this in a game. I think it is. But the thing you wanted to establish simply hasn't been, because the claimed reason--"if it's fine for a novel, it's fine for a campaign"--is patently false.I mean, it's quite cold comfort, but I kinda predicted...pretty much all of this during the D&D Next playtest. Design isn't just some pure ineffable expression of auteur intent beyond any possibility of analysis or technical criticism. Game design is a technology. It can be used for better or worse ends, and it can be evaluated as to whether it achieves the ends for which it was designed.As a general rule, I think it is reasonable to ask that successful products should care about doing the things they claim to do.Depends on what the option is, and how the giving is done. I could use some rather....pointed examples, but I suspect that would be excessively inflammatory. Instead, we can just construct simple (and intentionally hyperbolic) examples of "new options" for D&D content. Imagine if we added a 1st-level spell that did 100d6 "chaos" damage (meaning, a damage type which nothing in 5e has any immunity nor resistance to) to all enemies (not allies) in a 100' radius, no saving throw, upcasting for a further 100d6 per spell level. That's merely adding an option! But it's quite clearly a problem as well, or at least I should hope you would consider it so, given how hyperbolically bad I've constructed it to be. We could do the same thing for races (Kryptonian, +10 to all ability scores and the ability to cast several offensive and defensive spells at-will), classes (make a new class that has all the class features of Druid, Cleric, and Wizard), backgrounds (you are proficient in all skills; pick two skills that gain expertise), you name it.TL;DR: "Giving an option" that dwarfs or distorts the value of all other options by comparison can, in fact, be a pretty big problem. The burden, of course, is to show that a particular option does distort things in this way. But I don't think it's hard to argue that giving players the option to never do anything particularly dangerous or unsafe, but instead stick with the exact same opponents in greater numbers (which...generally cannot be brought to bear because terrain effects, area denial, and action economy do not permit effective use of massive numbers of combatants) will result in them choosing to do that consistently, rather than actually facing new and interesting, but more risky, dangers instead.TTRPG players are usually cautious to a fault, unless they're full-on murderhobos...who wouldn't care either way, so it's not like their opinion is changing the results any.Except that it does. Because this is not "option A is intense tactical combat with a need to continually face tougher opponents, while option B is intense strategic combat against teeming hordes." It is replacing option A with option B. Which was the whole point--get rid of the feeling of progress from becoming an insurmountable obstacle for your old enemies, and instead (attempt to) provide a feeling of progress from facing more enemies of the same kind.You will probably not be surprised to know that I, and many others, find this unsatisfying.</blockquote>

Verification