D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[EzekielRaiden]

I think this points to my issue. What is it D&D does? You seemed to posit that is a long string of "engaging" battles?

I am not fond of that mode of D&D. There are other ways to play D&D I like a lot better.

What does D&D do mechanically?

Yes, it does precisely that, because that's precisely what it is and has always been, mechanically, from its inception.

D&D's engine is a wargame engine, but with a critical component removed: it is a "campaign" where one of the armies (the PCs) must continually fight battles, over and over and over again. That army--henceforth, PC-Army--is thus given specific, defined ways for restocking supplies, because if there weren't such a method, PC-Army would guaranteed lose, and pretty quickly at that.

Everything else in the engine is either not mechanical in the first place ("GM Says"), has only the barest suggestion of mechanics (extremely simple "roll a die, did you exceed X?" binary resolution)...or is magic, where players can just declare that they win because they already have the <spell/item/scroll/etc.> which, in actuality or merely functionally, guarantees they win. 4e tried to introduce actual mechanics outside of combat via Skill Challenges, but botched the presentation (a common flaw with 4e), and anything good it did communicate got lost in the hate parade. Since then, 5e has done absolutely nothing to change this, and has in fact tried to compress as much of itself as it can into the spells system, where essentially all non-fiat, non-combat mechanics are stowed.

Mechanically, D&D is and remains a wargame where the war is never-ending for one army, but it can restock, plus expansive GM fiat and the occasional roughly-50/50 rolled die to determine whether something succeeds or not, unless Spells, which are profoundly scattershot and frequently VERY poorly-designed.

 

[Umbran]

But you're making claims about D&D that are inconsistent using definitions that you have pretty clearly misunderstood. When it gets pointed out to you that you flat out contradict your own definitions, you start moving the goalposts yet again.

Mod note:

Look how many times this post refers to the other speaker, I steady of the topic.

If the basic way to engage with this material is to impugn those who don't agree, that is time to stop.

So, go back to the actual topic, or take a break. If you do not have it in you to take a break, a break can be provided for you.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think 4e took a very different approach and style. To me 4e was D&D in about the same way the 60s Batman TV show was the same as Chritopher Nolan's Batman movies.

Well, Christopher Nolan’s version certainly departed from the core of the character, which was goofy inventions and Bat-puns.

He didn’t even use the Bat-credit card!

 

[AlViking]

Using that technique what would make them a minion?
The idea behind my changes is that the fighter would still wade through if they did enough damage, but that smaller amounts of damage would not suddenly drop the creature.

Since I don't care for the minion concept I think it's unnecessary in 5e. Meanwhile if I want those low level monsters to feel more individually dangerous, they need a bit of a boost. It's not going to work for an ogre, but it would still mean modified CR 1 monsters would only take a single hit most of the time.

Most of the time I just use mob rules or things like a zombie swarm.

 

[Enrahim]

What does D&D do mechanically?

Yes, it does precisely that, because that's precisely what it is and has always been, mechanically, from its inception.

D&D's engine is a wargame engine, but with a critical component removed: it is a "campaign" where one of the armies (the PCs) must continually fight battles, over and over and over again. That army--henceforth, PC-Army--is thus given specific, defined ways for restocking supplies, because if there weren't such a method, PC-Army would guaranteed lose, and pretty quickly at that.

Everything else in the engine is either not mechanical in the first place ("GM Says"), has only the barest suggestion of mechanics (extremely simple "roll a die, did you exceed X?" binary resolution)...or is magic, where players can just declare that they win because they already have the <spell/item/scroll/etc.> which, in actuality or merely functionally, guarantees they win. 4e tried to introduce actual mechanics outside of combat via Skill Challenges, but botched the presentation (a common flaw with 4e), and anything good it did communicate got lost in the hate parade. Since then, 5e has done absolutely nothing to change this, and has in fact tried to compress as much of itself as it can into the spells system, where essentially all non-fiat, non-combat mechanics are stowed.

Mechanically, D&D is and remains a wargame where the war is never-ending for one army, but it can restock, plus expansive GM fiat and the occasional roughly-50/50 rolled die to determine whether something succeeds or not, unless Spells, which are profoundly scattershot and frequently VERY poorly-designed.

Wohay! A new chance for trying to sharpen the arguments I have tried to hone the last 20 years

How much of D&D is the spell lists? I went over OD&D spell list that is on the OD&D spell list and found 23 spells that strike me as quite circumstantial to be possible to use effectively in combat. 4 of them is about restocking supplies. Most of them (12) is about gathering information. 7 seem to mainly be related to getting to places. This do not count things like fly, levitate or Charm which might have obvious in-combat uses alongside it's possibly more intended out of combat uses.

Listen to doors. Xp for treasure. 10 foot pole. None of these really scream "combat" to me.

Ok, I know the counter argument. These are hardly mechanics. And so what? It is content. These days setting has been quoted as similarly if not more important basis to judge a new TTRPG on than it's mechanics.

-----------------------

But OK. Even if we grant that D&D was, still is and always have been a war game, then we still have other modes than the endless string of "engaging combats". We have the attrition slog, where every combat is a cake walk - until you are so depleted that the last 2 encounters of the day is dangerous if you pushed too far. We also have the combat is a failure state game, where every combat is all about if the players manage to get away before too many of them are slaughtered. We have the chose your battle play where you are supposed to use those sweet information gathering spells and rules to determine which combats are which type. All of these game modes benefit strongly from a solid war combat game in the bottom to work. Neither of them feature a single "engaging" combat (unless you play with fire in the chose your battle play).

For all version of D&D except 4ed I prefer either of these 3 modes over the string of "engaging" combat pattern.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is no such thing for Fighters. They just do get better at things because the rules say so. You are now inventing post hoc explanations to justify why the mechanics would be the way they are. Numerous times, you have rejected this kind of reasoning as utterly unacceptable, as incompatible with the very idea of simulation. Now it's fine. Why?


Barbarians do not have a 20 cap. When they reach level 20, their cap is 24 (5.0) or 25 (5.5e.)

And now notice how you are, happily I might add, using the game abstraction to justify the world being different. The abstraction leads, and the world follows. Wasn't that unacceptable just a little while ago?

You'll have to explain yourself better than, "you're a hypocrite" if you want to make any headway with me. Your argument rests on the assumption that classes have no diagetic role in the setting; that they are simply a gamist and/narrative construct. That is a popular opinion, but I don't hold to it.

And I specifically stated that I believe very high-level PCs in 5e transcend "mortal" limits. in the fiction, not as an abstract concept. I wish the game was more transparent about that, but given the rules on the page that's my explanation. You can't legitimately counter my point by referring to a point I specifically addressed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. It doesn't.

It enhances setting consistency by ensuring that a particular threat is experienced how it should be, within the world. Because our abstractions of power and danger are flawed. The world isn't. We should adjust our abstractions in order to accurately represent the threat a thing presents.

And if you were doing that because the thing being represented was inaccurately depicted in the setting, and not for narrative reasons relative to another creature (the PCs), that would be something I could understand and work with. But that's not what minions are for. Most games that use them IME are quite clear about their narrative purpose.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Good luck getting that to change.

Any rule can be changed at your own table, where it matters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The PCs' statblocks are not absolute. They change as the players change them--in the ways they are permitted to do so. Sometimes those changes are diegetic. Often, they are not. We simply handwave away the inconsistencies by admitting that the abstraction is imperfect.

As for the other point here, that it would be unacceptable to change the PCs' statblocks: Of course it would, for gameplay reasons. There is nothing diegetic about not changing the players' statblocks. There is, however, something extremely important in the gameplay, the "ludus" part of the experience, namely that that pulls the rug out from under the player so they can no longer make reasonably-informed, meaningful decisions.

Those statblocks are a necessary input. One of several, to determine what relative thing we are considering. It's not the only one. The rules themselves also provide an input, as do other elements.


It may be non-negotiable for you, but it is not possible to achieve within the rules of D&D and the other requirements you've placed.

We have to accept at least one of the following:

• We redesign the game so that it isn't what D&D does anymore, so that perfect mechanical symmetry between PC and monster is possible while still having entirely diegetic processes.
• We break perfect mechanical symmetry, thus allowing the abstractions (read: NPC statblocks) to change as needed to reflect the new contexts that PCs find themselves in, through diegetic processes.
• We abandon the requirement of diegetic processes, so that things change simply because the mechanics say they must change within the space of perfect mechanical symmetry.

The first is induced by the fundamental problem of preserving the basal, down-to-the-metal framework of a wargame....where we have changed it so that one side must succeed not just for this battle, but for every battle into perpetuity in order for play to proceed meaningfully. In other words, we have broken the symmetry ourselves by making PCs that must win and win and win and win and win in order for play to proceed, but NPCs that only need to participate once.

D&D, at its very heart of hearts, is designed as an asymmetrical game. It has to be. If it weren't, functionally 100% of campaigns would fall to TPKs. Even if the players have a 95% chance of avoiding a TPK with every "Deadly" battle, characters need at least five "Deadly" encounters in order to gain any given level in 5e, for example. That's roughly 50 battles just to reach level 11, which is (very VERY roughly) the point most campaigns end. That would mean only ~7.7% of all campaigns would actually reach level 11 without a TPK. More than half of campaigns would end by level five. (The first two levels only need ~3 Deadly combats each, so about half of campaigns would collapse by about that point.) And yes, I know you're of the opinion that repeated TPKs shouldn't be a problem for groups, but they demonstrably are and that isn't changing.

The other two points--breaking perfect mechanical symmetry, and abandoning diegetic processes--have their own share of issues, I agree. It would be wonderful if we didn't have to make this choice. But from where I'm sitting, I can't see any other way out. D&D's design, plus the twin requirements of exclusively diegetic processes and perfect player-nonplayer mechanical symmetry, force us into an unwinnable scenario.

We are left with a trilemma. Either we change what D&D is, which no one is willing to do; or we abandon diegesis, which thoroughly offends the simulation fans; or we abandon perfect mechanical symmetry. Something's gotta give--unless you can find a way to square that circle.

Or we get as close as we practically can to diegesis, and abstract what we have to for play. I do that, and somehow still manage to run a game. Weird.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Given this is precisely what 4e did, are you asserting 4e is not D&D?

It is the most different D&D ever got while retaining the name for business purposes. I fully understand why some people who were familiar with literally any other version of the game named D&D were unpleasantly surprised and ultimately turned off by it.