D&D 5E Monsters taking PC classes: I want it in Next.

[pemerton]

Why is this broken? A lot of other RPGs can handle celebrities just fine.

What RPGs do you have in mind? And what are their mechanics for handling celebrity?

In HeroWars/Quest celebrity is just another attribute. In Burning Wheel, it plays into the Circles mechanics via the Reputation and Affiliation rules. In both cases, it is factored into the mechanical balance of PC build resources and action resolution.

In contrast, D&D has almost no rules for handling celebrity. This suggests that it probably shouldn't be a big part of the game. But in any event, [MENTION=18340]CM[/MENTION] didn't mention celebrity. The imaginary feat had the effect "NPCs automatically fawn over you and beg your friendship". That's not a useful mechanic for adjudicating the effect of celebrity upon social conflicts. Rather, that's an automatic bypass on any challenge involving dealing with recalcitrant or non-compliant NPCs. It is to social conflict as Rope Trick is to dungeon pacing.

Again, it is only broken when you have you have a very specific idea of how the game should look like (the PCs being unknown "lone hero" adventurers).

Actually, it will be broken in any game in which NPCs are meant to pose obstacles to the will of the PCs - which is far more than the PCs being unknown "lone hero" adventurers.

But more genrally - it is not objectionable to want the game to deliver a certain sort of experience, as far as genre and pacing are concerned. Arguably, this is the main purpose of RPG design!

And why is this bad?

Well, if I was hoping to play a game of heroic fantasy, and what the rules give me is a game of world creation, that's bad for me. Instead of having a useful set of rules for framing heroic fantasy challenges, and then having the PCs resolve them by engaging them with their PCs via the action resolution mechanics, I have an essentially freeform game of the players reshaping the world with their unlimited wishes. That's a game I have little interest in on genre grounds alone; and I've got zero interest in playing it freeform.

The only scenario that I can think of where a game absolutely cannot "break" is under the auspices of a playstyle that is underwritten by a (i) complete anarchy of direction/focus with respect to genre emulation and where there is the acceptance of (ii) an utter vacuum of mood, tone and pacing. The moment (i) or (ii) moves even slightly from anarchy and vacuum the game will absolutely "break" when elements are introduced that undermine any of those.

<snip>

Contrary to your position, anarchy of direction, unbounded options/power narrow PC choices and they narrow the scope of potential gameplay accordingly as power play gimmicks become standard operating procedure. This is especially so in a game like D&D where nothing but absolute success is incentivized as failure is uniformly and ultimately punitive...where it narrows the scope of the game in the most complete way; TPK/campaign ending.

100% this.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Probably not the reaction you wanted, but I would think that the warning or disclaimer has done its job, and that it's a good thing.

A. Men.

I have a really hard time with anyone who argues, seriously, that there should be less DMing advice and fewer DM tools in 5E, especially when the reasons given always work out to be so trivial.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have a really hard time with anyone who argues, seriously, that there should be less DMing advice and fewer DM tools in 5E, especially when the reasons given always work out to be so trivial.

I have a hard time reconciling the word "advice" with the sentiment being discussed, let alone "tools". Giving people rules and then implying that they shouldn't use them because they're not "balanced" isn't good advice.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I have a hard time reconciling the word "advice" with the sentiment being discussed, let alone "tools". Giving people rules and then implying that they shouldn't use them because they're not "balanced" isn't good advice.

No, it's absolutely fantastic advice, provided:

1) The rules aren't balanced with everything else.
2) The rules cannot easily be made balanced with everything else.
3) The rules, for some reason, need to be included to satisfy some particular desire.

If the rules have to be there, and they aren't balanced with the rest, and playtest / design couldn't get them reasonably balanced, then you should absolutely tell the DM that these items are not particularly balanced, and should be used carefully be experienced DMs.

See also the Deck of Many Things, most artifacts, monsters-as-PCs-in-3.XE, Book of Exalted Deeds / Vile Darkness supplements, etc.

Obviously, my ideal would be to either have them balanced or not included, but that's not always going to happen.

As as for tools, I'm referring to people who are against encounter design tools like monster roles (which, I think, includes you, as well).

 

[Steely_Dan]

I expect, no--demand--that the core of the game be filled with character options which the DM can assume will not break the game if they aren't carefully monitored.

Me too, what does that have to do with an optional Savage Species type supplement for 5th Ed?

 

[Derren]

What RPGs do you have in mind? And what are their mechanics for handling celebrity?

Pretty much every RPG where the system doesn't shove its PCs into a very narrow role (adventurers) and allows for more varied gameplay than dungeon crawling. Actually D&D would, too if you just roll with it instead of complaining that it "breaks" some rather narrow way of gaming the players obviously have no interest in.

In contrast, D&D has almost no rules for handling celebrity. This suggests that it probably shouldn't be a big part of the game.

And this is exactly the problem. No non-combat rules -> only combat is part of the game. And of course tactical miniature combat can be "broken" easily. Expand the gameplay and it suddenly doesn't matter if combat is easier than normal (aka, broken) as it only makes up part of the game.

Actually, it will be broken in any game in which NPCs are meant to pose obstacles to the will of the PCs - which is far more than the PCs being unknown "lone hero" adventurers.

Ah, so stalkers, obsessive fans and the constant attention you get are not obstacles...

Well, if I was hoping to play a game of heroic fantasy, and what the rules give me is a game of world creation, that's bad for me. Instead of having a useful set of rules for framing heroic fantasy challenges, and then having the PCs resolve them by engaging them with their PCs via the action resolution mechanics, I have an essentially freeform game of the players reshaping the world with their unlimited wishes. That's a game I have little interest in on genre grounds alone; and I've got zero interest in playing it freeform.

So instead of having a system which offers many ways to play the game everyone can pick and choose you rather have a system which only offers one true way for everyone and remove everything else?

 

[Saagael]

Ah, so stalkers, obsessive fans and the constant attention you get are not obstacles...

If a DM has to specifically design their game around a single, solitary game element, then that game element has too much influence on the game and story, and is thus, broken.

 

[Derren]

If a DM has to specifically design their game around a single, solitary game element, then that game element has too much influence on the game and story, and is thus, broken.

Except that he hasn't to.
If the DM wants NPCs as obstacles, which was the entire premise, than he has to design some PCs to be an obstacle. Having a celebrity in the party does change anything here except that it can influence the nature of the obstacle, but so can race, class, possessions, past deeds or the backstories of the PCs.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If the rules have to be there, and they aren't balanced with the rest, and playtest / design couldn't get them reasonably balanced, then you should absolutely tell the DM that these items are not particularly balanced, and should be used carefully be experienced DMs.

If there were such a universal paradigm of balance, and there were particular rules that predictably fell outside it, and those rules needed to be there, then yes. Since this rather absurd premise is false, no.

 

[Argyle King]

It seems reasonable to me that a DM's Guide would include advice on the rules of the game.

Even more so in a game which is intended to be modular.