D&D General Renamed Thread: "The Illusion of Agency"

I think I agree with that...I'm untangling the sentence. But, yeah, how important is this portcullis to the story?

Also, here's another possible outcome:

DM: "The portcullis looks heavy, and is covered with rust."
Wizard: "I misty step through! Catch you martial losers later."
DM: "Just then, a pack of owlbears emerges from the rubble."
Wizard: "Help! That was my last level 2 spell slot!"
Barbarian: "Gosh, this thing is HEAVY...."
So at what point does the GM decide that the owlbear is there and how would this have proceeded had the wizard not bamfed through and waited for the barbarian to lift the portcullis instead?

(Yes, I'm being a little bit silly. The larger point is that I don't understand or subscribe to this idea that it's a competition to see who has the most effective character. That's just not how I experience RPGs.)
It is not a competition, but unless specifically informed beforehand, I think it is fair that players can assume that all class choices will be roughly equally effective in the long run.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think I agree with that...I'm untangling the sentence. But, yeah, how important is this portcullis to the story?

Also, here's another possible outcome:

DM: "The portcullis looks heavy, and is covered with rust."
Wizard: "I misty step through! Catch you martial losers later."
DM: "Just then, a pack of owlbears emerges from the rubble."
Wizard: "Help! That was my last level 2 spell slot!"
Barbarian: "Gosh, this thing is HEAVY...."
So this really kind of reminds me of Dungeon World, in which if you outright fail, there will be a negative consequence and it’s up to the GM to determine what that is. But the difference there is that even spells can fail. The system is the same for everyone regardless of ability.

I agree - the portcullis needs to have a point to existing otherwise passing it by is wasting time, potentially wasting player resources unnecessarily, and they should just move past it without issue. It should be protecting something that the players can’t easily access otherwise. If they can’t access it at all without passing the portcullis, it shouldn’t be material to the adventure itself but maybe it’s a magic item they don’t get or a side NPC they don’t meet.
 

So this really kind of reminds me of Dungeon World, in which if you outright fail, there will be a negative consequence and it’s up to the GM to determine what that is. But the difference there is that even spells can fail.
Yeah, Blades in the Dark works this way too.

The system is the same for everyone regardless of ability.
And that's important. I don't think it is good idea to port this approach in a system where some classes have plentiful capabilities (spells) to bypass this consequence generation mechanic.
 

And that's important. I don't think it is good idea to port this approach in a system where some classes have plentiful capabilities (spells) to bypass this consequence generation mechanic.

I think there’s aspects where it can work but here’s the way I think it would work in my game. The owlbears are behind a portcullis and they are guarding the back door to the BBEG lair. The party could bypass the rest of the dungeon if they can get past these challenges.

The wizard can misty step, and bypass the portcullis easily. What he doesn’t know yet is that the owlbears are in the next room, and potentially if he’s not careful, he can alert them and now he’s cut off from the party unless he raises the portcullis.

The barbarian can raise the portcullis potentially, but doing so will definitely alert the owlbears with the noise, but the benefit to the party is at least the entire party is there to deal with them.

They can also skip the portcullis entirely and have to go the long way around.

The point is that the consequences in 5e should not just be materialized out of nowhere. In DW, there’s more leeway for the GM to do that.
 

So at what point does the GM decide that the owlbear is there and how would this have proceeded had the wizard not bamfed through and waited for the barbarian to lift the portcullis instead?

Great question, and it varies by game system. But not really relevant to the scenario I presented. It could be a published adventure the GM is following, or it could be the result of a roll that determines a complication. Or it might just be the GM thinking, "You know what would add some excitement to a slow session..."

It is not a competition, but unless specifically informed beforehand, I think it is fair that players can assume that all class choices will be roughly equally effective in the long run.

Maybe. Again, my experience has never been that martials are less effective in the long run, and I think the people I play with feel the same, although I understand that others feel differently.

Perhaps one difference is that at my table, having a high Str character is generally more useful than having a high Int character. I don't force players to have high mental stats to think up plans and solve puzzles, but their physical stats may factor into success.

Does that make sense?
 

Great question, and it varies by game system. But not really relevant to the scenario I presented. It could be a published adventure the GM is following, or it could be the result of a roll that determines a complication. Or it might just be the GM thinking, "You know what would add some excitement to a slow session..."

I think the issue is that this becomes a non-random, arbitrary encounter just because, which can work at times...like, i've certainly done this when I feel that the party is looking for a fight, and the session is slow, but it does pose a problem when it's only triggered by those using skills.
 

To me, this comes down to adventure design. If lifting the portcullis is the less treacherous path into the castle, then the penalty for failing is having to find another path, and to my mind, maybe not @Bill Zebub, that path should have some tougher challenges.
That's certainly how I would view it. "Crap. You gave it your all--but that portcullis isn't budging. You can't stay here long, you'll start drawing the Very Bad kind of attention if you do. What do you do?"

The players will need to take a more dangerous, or more risky, or more onerous route into the castle. Fail Forward means that this can't be a dead end, though. Maybe they already know another way in and chose to use this one. If they didn't, maybe you mention that they can see servants moving through the castle on the other side of the portcullis. Or maybe you remind them that adventuring gear includes hooks and rappelling lines. Or maybe they pay off a ne'er-do-well who can smuggle them inside, but separated from their gear. Or...etc. Failing to enter through the portcullis doesn't dead-end the action, it just redirects the action to a higher-tension result.
 

Yeah, Blades in the Dark works this way too.


And that's important. I don't think it is good idea to port this approach in a system where some classes have plentiful capabilities (spells) to bypass this consequence generation mechanic.
Why not?

It's one of the few ways to actually bring back a measure of fairness again. Sure, you have your crazy spells that could be "I win" buttons....but you take a risk by using them just as much as anyone else takes a risk by using anything else.

What is so harmful about taking away the fact that magic uniquely acts as a "get out of jail free" card? I genuinely don't understand what the issue is. Heck, it's not even like this is something PbtA/FitD/etc. introduced. "Casting spells is dangerous!" is a mechanic that's been around for easily 30+ years, and it's all the rage in the OSR scene. I personally don't care for the typical OSR expression thereof ("spells are great, but one bad roll and you die horribly...if you're lucky"), mostly because it feels like turning magic into a "screw you for even trying" process. But having spells be able to blow up in your face some of the time if you screwed them up? I genuinely don't see how that's a problem.

Obviously, 5e specifically it would require playtesting, perhaps even extensive playtesting, but I don't see any reason why it should fail in practice, let alone in principle.
 

Why not?

It's one of the few ways to actually bring back a measure of fairness again. Sure, you have your crazy spells that could be "I win" buttons....but you take a risk by using them just as much as anyone else takes a risk by using anything else.

What is so harmful about taking away the fact that magic uniquely acts as a "get out of jail free" card? I genuinely don't understand what the issue is. Heck, it's not even like this is something PbtA/FitD/etc. introduced. "Casting spells is dangerous!" is a mechanic that's been around for easily 30+ years, and it's all the rage in the OSR scene. I personally don't care for the typical OSR expression thereof ("spells are great, but one bad roll and you die horribly...if you're lucky"), mostly because it feels like turning magic into a "screw you for even trying" process. But having spells be able to blow up in your face some of the time if you screwed them up? I genuinely don't see how that's a problem.

Obviously, 5e specifically it would require playtesting, perhaps even extensive playtesting, but I don't see any reason why it should fail in practice, let alone in principle.

You misunderstood me. It would be fine if magic was risky in this way. But in 5e it isn't. So it is an issue if only the skills are risky.
 


Trending content

Remove ads

Top