D&D General Hot Take: Uncertainty Makes D&D Better

[Neonchameleon]

I find this a bad reason for random character stats. The world is already stacked against people, I already know how to live in a world of rampant inequality. Perhaps I want to play a game where those factors are exacerbated. We don't roll a d20 to see what level you begin as (despite people coming from all different levels of experience) for example. We don't play Monopoly with each player starting with different amount of wealth and property already (despite the fact that would better model the economic advantages some people have). We assume an even playing field.

A 5'2 person can't play in the NBA, so he won't try. It's not like they are going to show up on draft day and find out they can't play after being dunked on by everyone. Realistically, all those quirky "low score" characters (the ones on the low end of the bell curve) would realize adventuring requires gifts beyond them and likewise take up a mundane profession. Ergo, most of those "low roll" PCs should retire upon creation unless they are narcissists or non compos mentis.

In general I agree. However this depends on what your world's understanding of "adventuring" is; whether adventurers are the elite of the elite, whether they are people who can't or are unwilling to hold down an honest living, or whether they are simply the ones who showed up and survived.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In general I agree. However this depends on what your world's understanding of "adventuring" is; whether adventurers are the elite of the elite, whether they are people who can't or are unwilling to hold down an honest living, or whether they are simply the ones who showed up and survived.

One of the major issues with D&D and indeed a lot of TTRPGs is that they simply refuse to take a position on this, and thus you get a lot of PCs who are trying to be all three at once, or parties where different PCs are doing different things but all under rules that essentially make them one of these (5E being closest to "the elite" of the options noted).

One good thing about Earthdawn (of many) was that it made it clear that whatever your background or however you got there, you were an Adept, and thus magically-enhanced in your abilities, providing a consistency here whilst not undermining backgrounds and their meaning. D&D isn't even sure if classes are a real thing or just a framework, so cannot have that consistency.

 

[Neonchameleon]

One of the major issues with D&D and indeed a lot of TTRPGs is that they simply refuse to take a position on this, and thus you get a lot of PCs who are trying to be all three at once, or parties where different PCs are doing different things but all under rules that essentially make them one of these (5E being closest to "the elite" of the options noted).

I wouldn't say that that's a D&D problem so much as it is a setting problem; I can entirely believe that e.g. in the Forgotten Realms the PCs are the elite, in Greyhawk they are people who can't find a safer job, and in the Nentir Vale they're the people who stepped up. But every setting should have some sort of answer to this.

One good thing about Earthdawn (of many) was that it made it clear that whatever your background or however you got there, you were an Adept, and thus magically-enhanced in your abilities, providing a consistency here whilst not undermining backgrounds and their meaning. D&D isn't even sure if classes are a real thing or just a framework, so cannot have that consistency.

Yup. And then there's the whole "What is a spell level or a spell slot" question.

 

[Remathilis]

In general I agree. However this depends on what your world's understanding of "adventuring" is; whether adventurers are the elite of the elite, whether they are people who can't or are unwilling to hold down an honest living, or whether they are simply the ones who showed up and survived.

Most D&D assumes that adventurer is a career. Certainly, you can write a story where you inherit an evil artifact from your uncle and get thrust into adventuring, but most PCs, by the virtue of being in a class, have training that assumes a certain level of competency and thus aptitude.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

It's imagination and creativity that make D&D better, and IF you have that already then it doesn't need to be forced by random dice rolls with a fixed list of results. If you don't have that already, then I think random dice rolls aren't going to help much.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Most D&D assumes that adventurer is a career. Certainly, you can write a story where you inherit an evil artifact from your uncle and get thrust into adventuring, but most PCs, by the virtue of being in a class, have training that assumes a certain level of competency and thus aptitude.

This isn't an answer. Mafia kneebreaker and member of the Praetorian Guard are both careers but are careers with very different entry routes and social statuses. Being a soldier in North Korea is a very different thing from being one in the US.

 

[Andvari]

In classic D&D, does the GM get to decide whether a failed morale check results in flight or surrender? (I have a feeling it might be different in B/X and AD&D, with the latter being more rigid; I don't know what OD&D says.)

I don't think AD&D has a morale system like that. The BECMI morale system is optional - a tool the DM can use or not when desired. Morale failure means the monsters no longer pursue combat. The exact way this plays out is up to the DM. It could mean attempting to negotiate a truce, fleeing or surrendering. Or something else.

From Rules Cyclopedia:

Morale (Optional)
DMs are free to ignore this rule entirely, and they can gauge the morale based on the situation, the nature of the creature involved, and any other factors they deem as relevant. The morale check is supposed to be a convenience for the DM, to give him a quick way to decide how creatures react; it's not a straight-jacket to keep him from role-playing a character the way he sees that character behaving.

DM rolls 2d6 against creature's morale score (found in monster descriptions). If 2d6 roll is equal to or less than morale score, creature pursues combat; otherwise, it avoids combat. Only NPCs and monsters roll morale; PCs make their own decisions.

 

[Reynard]

It's imagination and creativity that make D&D better, and IF you have that already then it doesn't need to be forced by random dice rolls with a fixed list of results. If you don't have that already, then I think random dice rolls aren't going to help much.

How amazingly, boldly dismissive. Thanks for sharing.

 

[pemerton]

Spells always succeeding causes far more problems than it solves. Indeed, it's absolutely at the core of literally everything that's wrong with D&D.

With this I agree. A return to 1e-style interruptability along with a requirement to aim combat spells that aren't being cast on oneself would go (and IME do go, as I have both in my game) a long way toward sorting this.

At least in my experience (with AD&D and Rolemaster) the effect of classic D&D-style spells on play is not primarily a combat thing, and changes to the combat rules would not make much difference.

The effect is a result of the fact that they give the players who deploy them a very large degree of control over both framing and resolution.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

At least in my experience (with AD&D and Rolemaster) the effect of classic D&D-style spells on play is not primarily a combat thing, and changes to the combat rules would not make much difference.

The effect is a result of the fact that they give the players who deploy them a very large degree of control over both framing and resolution.

Agree completely. The big issue with spells is out-of-combat. It used to be in-combat in 1/2/3E, but 5E has largely balanced them in-combat. Out-of-combat though? They're just the power to fiat-assert things, essentially - it's like D&D has significant narrative aspects, but only for casters (primarily full casters).