D&D 5E Just One More Thing: The Power of "No" in Design (aka, My Fun, Your Fun, and BadWrongFun)

[DEFCON 1]

@DEFCON 1 seems to be asserting that, in 5e D&D, a free descriptor can be the main component of action resolution.

Uh... no. Why are you trying to make what a PC says about themself into a game mechanic? You're right, we are not playing FATE. This idea that a PC says they are "the best swordsman in the land" has NO mechanical weight, and is not used to satisfy any game conditions.

All it is, is what the PC has seen of themself within the narrative. That's all. If this PC has won every fight they have ever been in within the story... then they decide within the story to claim themselves to be the best swordsman in the land. And as a DM I find that perfectly acceptable. Does it matter to me if they are only 1st level? Nope. Does it matter to me that the 'Guard' NPC statblock or the 'Kobold' statblock could be used to defeat this character? Nope. Do I ever have to present pointless random challenges of Guards and Kobolds just to defeat this PC and thus prove they aren't "the best swordsman in the land"? I'd be a pretty crappy DM if I did that, if I do say so myself.

Here's the thing... this is all baseline improv rules. 'Yes, And...' and all that. The player says "I want my character's story to be that they are known as the best swordsman in the land." And I go, "Okay! Yes! Sounds great!" And at that point, I begin working stories that help exemplify that narrative, while also creating obstacles for the PC that are dramatically challenging. Being the best swordsman in the land is meaningless if they never get to show it off or occasionally prove themselves. But this will only happen when it is dramatically important within the story. I'm NOT going to just have a random town guard show up to kick this character's ass for no reason just to prove that I could. Because I think that's dumb. And narratively unsatisfying. And a kick in the groin to this player of mine for no other reason than because I can. And when these dramatically important parts of the story show up... the PC will get to exemplify it. Or on the off-chance the PC doesn't win one of these fights, then that will result in a further exploration of the drama for this character when they have to deal with it down the road in the story.

And all of this can happen when the PC is level 20. Or level 10. Or even level 1. Because the mechanics do not dictate the in-game reality of the story. Can it enhance it? Sure! If your PC is a level 16 Battlemaster Fighter and I throw many of the random NPC statblocks at you, your character is probably going to kick all their asses... oftentimes many of them at once. And if that happens? Then great. But it's not a requirement. Not be a longshot.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Dupe

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think @lowkey13's thesis is fundamentally flawed here, because he totally fails to account for the fact that 5E is designed to be extensible, and to easily support additional material.

The premise that too much is inevitably bad is also extremely weak when using exception-based design. Stuff like MtG shows that with proper base design and an exception-based framework almost limitless expansion is possible.

5E is not as well-designed as MtG, but it is a good design for adding more material, and at the current rate, we're multiple decades out from this even potentially being real issue rather than an Internet person "issue" (please note hate-quotes).

Not all RPGs are designed this way. Some use little exception-based design. For those, continuous expansion and addition can rapidly present a real problem. But 5E isn't among them. Scaremongering Internet nonsense about "Oh no 6E!" detracts from, rather than adding to this discussion, I should add.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

Which is what I originally said. Many players (like you apparently) fall into the group that equates game mechanics with ability.

I mean...yes? I think of myself as fairly liberal with my character definitions and how they map to the game world. Concepts like "class" don't exist in the narrative space, class is purely a metagame tool to group abilities to foster PC building. I freely build unique NPCs with unique abilities, and grant unique abilities to PCs to better match their concept.

But I do that in the service of matching and mapping the concept to a related game mechanic. And using level as the defacto mechanical description of potency is pretty much a prerequisite for D&D style play. I just don't see how to run a "greatest swordsman in the world" who's also mechanically impotent and has trouble fighting 2 kobolds, without imposing some other massive narrative hook onto the character (like he's cursed, or has amnesia).

I have to say, I'm intrigued as to how you pull this off in your game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm guessing that you didn't "understand" what I wrote (please note hate quotes).

Before you wind up again, I would suggest you consider that there is a difference between disagreeing with someone because you have a different opinion (a normative point of view) as opposed to saying that what they wrote is "Scaremogering Internet nonsense" and asserting that, say, this edition of D&D (unlike all prior ones) will allow for "multiple decades" of almost "limitless expansion[.]"

It is certainly possible, but I think that you both missed the point of what I wrote, and are also asserting something which is certainly ... not well evidenced in the history of TTRPGs.

I don't think that I did miss the point, at all. The lack of any clarification on the point or any substantive disagreement with what I'm saying suggests that I am correct in thinking this.

Re disagreement, I would not have said "scaremongering internet nonsense" if you'd stuck to an argument, but you apparently decided your argument wasn't convincing without a little scaremongering re 6E.

As for "unlike previous ones" that's not something I actually said so puts you on an extremely poor footing re arguments, given you're jamming words in my mouth (whereas "scaremongering internet nonsense" is merely my subjective opinion, not an attribution of fact).

I would say we could easily have an entire other thread on different editions of D&D and how extensible they were and how well they used exception-based design. I feel like RC D&D and 5E would come out as the best exemplars of both, but not perhaps by a huge margin nor in every possible way.

I'd also note some areas of design are more or less likely to cause problems with this. New classes designed by WotC are low or middle on that list I would suggest, for reasons which would take a while to lay out.

The biggest potential problems in 5E come from new spells, I'd say, followed by new Feats. But I see no-one suggesting we have no more spells.

 

[Umbran]

The DM decides that random town guard was secretly one of the many seeking to prove themselves and when you go back to try and find him they say he just joined the group by throwing money at them and they do not know who he really is.

Or... funny possibility... you recognize that in this game, "greatest swordsman in the land," does not equate to, "invulneralbe." I mean, I don't know what a character who isn't in the high-teens of levels is doing calling themselves "greatest" in the first place, except as bluff and bluster.

If you choose a rule set, and then dictate an image of your character that is not consistent with what the rules produce, the problem is not in the rules, but in your choice to use them, or in how you choose to interact with them.

What you say, about narrating how this town guard is really a great swordsman in disguise for some reason... sounds great once. But it doesn't sound long-term supportable. Is the GM now ironing over the Greatest Swordsman's tripping over a shoelace, the Greatest Wizard's mumbled verbal component before coffee, and the Greatest Psion's migraine that morning?

The game, alas, generates much of its tension by pushing characters to the edges of their mechanical effectiveness - and that means that your self-avowed "greatest swordsman" is going to fail on occasion. It is not the GM's job to mop up your reputation when your abilities do not match the song you've been paying the bard to sing all around town.

If you want to play a game where you are literally the greatest swordsman, from the get-go, that's a fine and fun game to play, and there are rules sets that will do it smoothly for you. D&D doesn't support it very well.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

All it is, is what the PC has seen of themself within the narrative. That's all. If this PC has won every fight they have ever been in within the story... then they decide within the story to claim themselves to be the best swordsman in the land.

That sounds like you're simply stating that you're supporting a narrative where a character can achieve their belief, not that the character's declaration is actually testably true within the fiction. I have no problem with that, then (and have advocated for that in the past!)

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Greatest swordsman is probably not at all reasonably even a purely physical mele'r classed (my english...is not good enough for that word) individual anyway.

This is a world wherein magic exists. Magic that can directly make you a better swordsman. Yeah. Thats a thing. And its not just higher level castwrs being overpowered. It actually makes sense. Think of it as similar to performance enhancing drugs. Those who use them are the pinnacle of athleticism (until their balls shrivel at least).

World's greatest sword's man is proba ly some dude with AT BARE MINIMUM mid level magic paired with an even greater or lesser number of additional levels in a pure melee class (multiclasser)

So they most likely are an amazing melee attacker who has become the master of a martial art that mixes magic, acrobatics, battle field manipulation, and the sword for a devastating single combatant.

A mage and a swordsman (spell sword) is realistically the most likely to be the "greatest swordsman" and there are likely several contemporaries and colleagues of his who have more levels of fighter (or a similar class) than he does.