D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Aldarc]

I know that, it creates unbeliability for me, I could not care less whether it does for you. I answered what it does for me. I do not think I have to point out in every single post that I am talking for myself rather than everyone, you can take that as a given

A result of my long experience here is that I can't take that as a given regardless of what anyone says, and there are plenty of mod comments in those threads much to the same effect.

It might come as a surprise, but how you feel about something has no relevance when it comes to how I feel about it. I would lose interest in such a game fast, even if you considered it the best thing since sliced bread

Much like I would probably lose interest in your game, especially if you were constantly saying "no" to players using their character abilities and features in plausible ways that you constantly deem unbelievable or implausible. I would probably just get to the point as a player where I would just ask you how you want me to play my character, what PC features are allowed for me to use, or what GM-approved actions for my character would be permissible for your royal highness's idiomatic sense of plausibility.

could not care less, some things make sense in the context of the world, others do not. The argument that one thing in my elf game is impossible in our world means that every kind of nonsense should be fine does not work for me

Not impossible. Unbelievable, and I'm not even talking about magic or the like.


But let's be clear here that there is very much a judgmental sentiment here about the play of @hawkeyefan and others when you derisively characterize it as "every kind of nonsense should be fine." As someone reading along, I think that he is being far more generous to characterizing your style of play than you are to his, though as likely seen below, I suspect that "[you] don't care."

I know that, it creates unbeliability for me, I could not care less whether it does for you. I answered what it does for me. I do not think I have to point out in every single post that I am talking for myself rather than everyone, you can take that as a given

It might come as a surprise, but how you feel about something has no relevance when it comes to how I feel about it. I would lose interest in such a game fast, even if you considered it the best thing since sliced bread


could not care less, some things make sense in the context of the world, others do not. The argument that one thing in my elf game is impossible in our world means that every kind of nonsense should be fine does not work for me

You may not care, but I do hope that you can learn to express your opinions in ways other than callous indifference. It makes for more fruitful discussion than just repeating "I don't care" when talking about other opinions.

 

[Bae'zel]

Because I or my players might like 5e? I played harder "gritty" 5e games. Its not that hard its just designing an adventure differently. But you have to design it anyway there is not a real higher workload in prepping. I agree that other games feel differently or naturally more hardcore, but I am annoyed by the notion that 5e forces you to play superhero style and if you try otherwise you have to modify the whole system. Thats just not true, based on my own experiences of someone who runs harder 5e games, where character death actually happens and not just super rare and resources matter.

… based on my own experience, 5e doesn't push you to play a superhero game. Not via its systems. You just have to design the adventure accordingly (like you need to do anyway) and adjust difficulty accordingly. And you might use variant rules that are printed in the official product and are part of the system.

I just wanted to reply to back you up: I’ve had similar experiences both playing and running 5e.

I agree that it’s really about adventure design and setting theme and mood.

I ran a Witcher campaign that definitely felt grittier due to a more strict interpretation, by the DM and the players, on what constitutes a “safe” location to take a short or long rest. That in itself changes a lot: no homebrewing or hacking necessary. Also the fact that in that setting the Resurrection spell, and people of high enough level and power to cast it, were extremely rare. Sets the stage really well.

I know that this anecdote won’t convince anyone, but just wanted to say that you’re not alone, heh.

 

[mamba]

A result of my long experience here is that I can't take that as a given regardless of what anyone says

take it or leave it, I am not going to include that in every post

If I wanted to talk about something other than how I see things, I include clear wording about that

But let's be clear here that there is very much a judgmental sentiment here about the play of @hawkeyefan and others when you derisively characterize it as "every kind of nonsense should be fine."

that was about the logical consequence of your argument, not about whatever they do at their table

I know there are different playstyles, some are not for me, doesn’t mean they are inherently wrong, it just means I am not interested and ‘implausible nonsense’ is a reflection of that. I have no idea what they are doing at their tables, so it is not a criticism of whatever they do specifically, even if they take it as such

 

[Oofta]

Well, writing and typing up paragraphs of detail and lore for the game world. Adding pictures and maps. Adding sets for miniatures. Adding play lists and music.

I assume virtually every D&D DM has to do some level of prep before running a game. What difference does it make what form that preparation takes?

I really, really do not understand what the issue is other than some weird classification to label some people's style of play and declare that it's somehow an aberration or unusual. I do have notes. Sometimes I use pictures for NPCs and a handful of maps. Just like many DMs I've had that ran modules instead of homebrew. But I rarely do detailed maps, I don't have sets for miniatures, play lists or music.

I also don't run linear campaigns, my games are very much driven by player choices and responsive to what their character's actions. I don't spend a lot of prep time for individual sessions, although occasionally I spend a small amount of time adding to existing lore and over years it has added up. Most importantly I don't spend a lot of time prepping for a particular session. Because I have slowly, bit by bit, developed lore and know a lot about my world I spend less time preparing than if I were running a canned module.

So if there is some point people are trying to make, some reason for carving out a type of preparation, please say so. Other than to label people as atavistic throwbacks to a bygone era that are ignoring the new and presumably improved methods of play that are so nebulous and ultimately meaningless.

 

[Aldarc]

I know there are different playstyles, some are not for me, doesn’t mean they are inherently wrong, it just means I am not interested and ‘implausible nonsense’ is a reflection of that. I have no idea what they are doing at their tables, so it is not a criticism of whatever they do specifically, even if they take it as such

Except they are telling you what they do/did at their tables or how they would handle these situations at their tables.

 

[pemerton]

The issue as I see it is that all that creativity you're suggesting comes with the restriction that it serve the principle that the mechanic in question must work as written; that is, that the fiction must bend to serve the mechanics. I find that principle uncomfortable personally, though I know others are fine with it.

When you resolve a D&D combat, don't you bend the fiction (eg who's doing what, who's being struck by blows, who's dying) to serve the mechanics (eg the initiative system and action economy, the rolls to hit, the reduction of hp to zero)?

Having the fiction be driven by the mechanics is the point of having mechanics. Otherwise you'd just make up what happens next.

 

[Oofta]

When you resolve a D&D combat, don't you bend the fiction (eg who's doing what, who's being struck by blows, who's dying) to serve the mechanics (eg the initiative system and action economy, the rolls to hit, the reduction of hp to zero)?

Having the fiction be driven by the mechanics is the point of having mechanics. Otherwise you'd just make up what happens next.

The results of combat are never predetermined. The results of using a background feature are. You can add all the fluff you want, all the creative explanations in the world or none at all and as written the background feature still works.

 

[tetrasodium]

Because I or my players might like 5e? I played harder "gritty" 5e games. Its not that hard its just designing an adventure differently. But you have to design it anyway there is not a real higher workload in prepping. I agree that other games feel differently or naturally more hardcore, but I am annoyed by the notion that 5e forces you to play superhero style and if you try otherwise you have to modify the whole system. Thats just not true, based on my own experiences of someone who runs harder 5e games, where character death actually happens and not just super rare and resources matter.

I answered quite directly to one specific point you made.

But you yourself make this difference about superhero playstyle mainly over difficulty. You talk about trivializing difficulty. I disagree with you, based on my own experience, 5e doesn't push you to play a superhero game. Not via its systems. You just have to design the adventure accordingly (like you need to do anyway) and adjust difficulty accordingly. And you might use variant rules that are printed in the official product and are part of the system.

(btw the 5e getting-knocked-out, healing word-upped, knocked out again, waking up cycle is not something I saw in any superhero story)

No. trivializing difficulty is one of the many things that the not at all flexible 5e does to actively resist other play & campaign styles. In some cases that's rather unforgivable because those play & campaign styles were among d&d's primary modes of play. It might be something to just shrug & look past had 5e done what 4e did & been clear that it was going in a new direction for a particular style it considered to be a new thing, but instead it took a new direction & actively designed against the old ways while endlessly proclaiming it was flexible to the point of being just great at them unless the GM is the problem.

 

[pemerton]

The results of combat are never predetermined. The results of using a background feature are. You can add all the fluff you want, all the creative explanations in the world or none at all and as written the background feature still works.

I don't know what you mean by this, nor do I really understand how it relates to my post.

For instance:

GM describes "You see a person walking towards you" while reading their notes that this is a 4 hp village elder.

Player responds "I zap them with a lightning bolt."

Dice are rolled - but the minimum damage, even if the GM rolls a successful saving throw, is 4 hp.

GM notes that the village elder drops to zero hp, and narrates "The lightning bolt strikes them dead."​

How is this anything other than the fiction "serving" (more precisely, being constrained and shaped by) the mechanics? You can add all the fluff you want, all the creative explanations in the world or none at all, and the PC still casts the spell, it still deals the damage that it deals, in the fiction the NPC keels over dead.

 

[Bae'zel]

No. trivializing difficulty is one of the many things that the not at all flexible 5e does to actively resist other play & campaign styles. In some cases that's rather unforgivable because those play & campaign styles were among d&d's primary modes of play. It might be something to just shrug & look past had 5e done what 4e did & been clear that it was going in a new direction for a particular style it considered to be a new thing, but instead it took a new direction & actively designed against the old ways while endlessly proclaiming it was flexible to the point of being just great at them unless the GM is the problem.

Have you come to this conclusion based on actual game experiences? Or is this theoretical, based on reading rules and reviews? Not to diminish or challenge your opinion, I'm genuinely curious, because in my experiences (as both a player and a DM over the past 10 years of 5e) I've experienced plenty of grit and grimdark sessions in this system.

Granted, that's been due to a variety of reasons:

• harsher DM calls
• ignoring encounter "balance" suggestions and setting up fights to be harder on purpose
• being more stingy on when characters can take short or long rests
• having the campaign take place in a more grim or low magic setting

For that last one, the settings didn't change any of the rules, just the pre-conceived notions of how prevalent magical healing and loot are in a D&D campaign setting. Ie, no magic items for sale, casters not being commonplace in settlements.

To each their own, but I disagree that 5e objectively cannot do other campaign styles than heroic fantasy.