D&D (2024) One D&D is one D&D too much (-)

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

View attachment 258982

Later in the movie, the writers have Syndrome echo what Dash is saying in this scene. Dash and Syndrome are wrong. That's the point of having one of the protagonists (a grumpy teenaged boy) and the main villain (who never matured beyond when he also was a grumpy teenage boy) agree on something.

Dash and Syndrome were wrong. Everyone can be special without taking away from anyone else.

 

[Chaosmancer]

everyone get's to do everything and be just like everybody else. The modern desire to make everything equal and fair. Problem is everyone thinks they want equal and fair till they have it.

I still want it, even after having it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

everyone get's to do everything and be just like everybody else. The modern desire to make everything equal and fair. Problem is everyone thinks they want equal and fair till they have it.

Good luck telling that to people that like 4e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Later in the movie, the writers have Syndrome echo what Dash is saying in this scene. Dash and Syndrome are wrong. That's the point of having one of the protagonists (a grumpy teenaged boy) and the main villain (who never matured beyond when he also was a grumpy teenage boy) agree on something.

Dash and Syndrome were wrong. Everyone can be special without taking away from anyone else.

I know that's what they were going for, but honestly I never saw that they supported that idea in the movie. All the main characters had superpowers, and they used them to overcome their obstacles. What did you see in the film that supports your point?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nope, it's a re-roll.

Read the text for Lucky:

"Immediately after you roll a d20 for a d20 Test,* you can spend 1 Luck Point to give yourself Advantage on the roll."

Bold mine. It's a re-roll, like I'm suggesting this should be. Sure, they're phrasing it as giving yourself Advantage, but that, I'm pretty sure, is a balance measure to prevent people getting "double Advantage" - you obviously logically cannot use Lucky if you already had Advantage on the roll because they're calling it that.

But it's a re-roll, because it's after you roll, thus after you see the number. Whereas Inspiration demands you pick before you roll. I'm suggesting changing to be like Lucky.

I agree with you on the proposed change to inspiration, but I do want to note the Disadvantage part of lucky is BEFORE you see the roll.

I think they all will end up being after the roll though. It is just how the timing of the table works.

Sure.

That's why I'm not really advocating for clarity of language. I'm suggesting any and all example backgrounds should be not called generic stuff like "Guard", but as someone else suggested, should be, "Trinxie Bigglebottom, Town Guard" - i.e. a specific name. Combine with with a bold text reminder (maybe put it in a box too!) that Custom backgrounds are default, and we're cooking with gas. But the names will be so off-putting even the dimmest people will FINALLY register that "Oh, these are only examples!".

So it is on the writer. I've had to do stuff like this.

Okay, I could see that being a way to do it.

I actually like that idea quite a bit. Would be a nice way to get Icons or whatever they are called.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I know that's what they were going for, but honestly I never saw that they supported that idea in the movie. All the main characters had superpowers, and they used them to overcome their obstacles. What did you see in the film that supports your point?

What super power does the guy all the heroes turn to to help them have?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Everyone can be special without taking away from anyone else.

Everyone could be... but the point is not everyone is special.

 

[MGibster]

I'll bite. Can you give me an example where unfairness is a positive in game design?

In Eden Studio's Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there are different power levels you can build player characters at. You have Scooby Gang level characters like Xander, Cordelia, and Willow (from early seasons) and then you have Slayer level characters like Buffy. The Slayer level characters often have powers and are tougher than the Scooby Gang characters. A Scoob isn't typically going to go toe-to-toe with a vampire while a Slayer will wipe the floor with one. Of course there's some balancing going on there. Each player gets Fate points (I think they're Fate points), and a Scoob character gets about 10 while a Slayer will only get 2-3 (I think, it's been a while). These Fate points can be used to avoid nasty situations or otherwise affect the course of a scene. And the GM is specifically advised not to set up situations where Scooby characters are going to get pummeled by Slayer level threats.

This is a positive in game design as it does a good job of emulating the television show the game is based off. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea for D&D, just that "unfairness" can work for some genres.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Everyone could be... but the point is not everyone is special.

Sure. But the PCs can all be equally special without it taking away from the other PCs. Commoners are the non-Specials in D&D worlds.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

In Eden Studio's Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there are different power levels you can build player characters at. You have Scooby Gang level characters like Xander, Cordelia, and Willow (from early seasons) and then you have Slayer level characters like Buffy. The Slayer level characters often have powers and are tougher than the Scooby Gang characters. A Scoob isn't typically going to go toe-to-toe with a vampire while a Slayer will wipe the floor with one. Of course there's some balancing going on there. Each player gets Fate points (I think they're Fate points), and a Scoob character gets about 10 while a Slayer will only get 2-3 (I think, it's been a while). These Fate points can be used to avoid nasty situations or otherwise affect the course of a scene. And the GM is specifically advised not to set up situations where Scooby characters are going to get pummeled by Slayer level threats.

This is a positive in game design as it does a good job of emulating the television show the game is based off. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea for D&D, just that "unfairness" can work for some genres.

Having never played it I can't comment on the game directly, but it sounds like you are describing a system which is fair but unequal in character powers. Essentially the slayer plays one game and the minions play a different game with different rules and goals along side of them, leaving id assume everyone having a good time.

Unfair would be a system (or portion of that system) designed to have some characters inferior to others in all respects...but still have them engage in the same activities.