D&D General Self-Defeating Rules in D&D

[Micah Sweet]

Goodberry's the obvious 5e spell that makes food unnecessary, while also providing on-demand healing.. as a 1st level spell! Available immediately! A5E makes goodberry provide healing, but it doesn't give days nourishment like the 5e version. A5E has create food and water but that's a 3rd level spell- it has one serving of food as a material requirement, and turns it into three supply.. so it's hardly a game-breaker.

But yes, Supply is a gameist conceit, not simulationist.

Supply is an attempt to get around vanilla 5e's neutering of exploration and survival by removing or altering options that inhibit it. It requires some gamism to make the sim work, which I'm ok with because it's necessary for the sim I want to work. For the nth time, it is a spectrum, so @Paul Farquhar 's gotcha has no teeth here.

I was wrong about Create Food and Water in A5e. Sorry, I don't have my books with me.

 

[Distracted DM]

I was wrong about Create Food and Water in A5e. Sorry, I don't have my books with me.

I wasn't trying to gotcha you, just replying to the other poster And like I said, create food n' water is heavily nerfed from the 5e version, which provides food and water for !fifteen! people. A5E creates enough for two or three, since its text suggests you're sacrificing one supply (serving?) to create three.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This strikes me as an unproductive, reductive truism, in that it's true but unhelpful if we stop further analysis or discussion at this point. We may as well all just stop playing D&D and start playing Tetris if the only thing that matters is that we "enjoy it".

Clearly, playing D&D is better than playing Tetris for certain kinds of gameplay, and vice-versa. The same general principle can be extended to consider that some design decisions might make playing D&D better for enabling fantasy gaming with little concern for logistics versus fantasy gaming with moderate or great concern for logistics. It is genuinely helpful to think through what those decisions might be and why WotC might want to make one set of decisions and not another - as opposed to "core rules that have little concern for logistics but with a bunch of stuff bolted on that makes it look like they do", which is the current status quo.

That’s completely contrary to how I see D&D. It’s first and foremost a fiction simulator. If a spell can be used in a way not specified in the rules, the players are not only allowed, but actively encouraged to get creative.

D&D is not chess. The rules are there to support the fiction. And “supply” does not exist unless it can be justified by the fiction.

 

[Pamphylian]

To me the purpose of darkness is to heighten tension, not as a gotcha to players that didn't remember to stock up on torches. Darkness facilitates stealthy monsters laying ambushes (even with darkvision, anyone without devil sight has a penalty to detect creatures hiding in darkness). It facilitates monsters who have abilities like shadow teleportation. It's a tool, not an end unto itself.

See, I thought the point of darkness mechanics was to adjudicate situations in play where it's dark. For me, that's what all the mechanics are for.

My synthesis of these two positions, which I both agree with, is that the purpose of darkness mechanics is to adjudicate darkness, and this is usually ultimately as a tool to heighten tension. Simulating well enough that it is a challenge when you'd expect it to be a challenge and that it can be countered with approaches and effects that you (player or DM) can judge reasonably well is what makes it work as a tension heightener. A little bit of light logistics (versus the alternative) tends makes light/dark less of a gotcha and more of a tool, because it's not just the DM saying "surprise, magical darkness" (that can be fun too, but it's less effective when that's the default encounter with the dark), as the players can plan for it both prior to and during the encounter.

I agree - but that's because it rarely comes up in things like Critical Role or BG3 or even discussions of D&D, but there's a reason it rarely comes up - its very existence means there's no point in playing weird lighting games, so D&D isn't a game about lighting, particularly. It's a bit of paradox or w/e but there it is.

I doubt any of my non-DnD playing friends have heard of Critical Role (even the majority of my D&D playing friends). Some may have played BG3, purely as a video game, but mostly not. I think at best the average non-D&D player of young-to-mid millennial age (my social target audience, some of whom are however quite amenable to playing), as far as fantasy goes, maybe knows the LoTR movies, GoT, Harry Potter, Shrek, a selection of adventure movies/video games/books with mild fantasy elements, Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail + Princess Bride (if they are of a certain age), and vague recollections of myth/fairy tales. Maybe a Miyazaki movie. Given this, the quirks of D&D fantasy beyond what has soaked into the popular culture (which I'd argue contains a lot more torches than darkvision, even today) are not really on their radar!

That said, people would absolutely riot if you just outright removed it in a new edition of D&D, and that includes a lot of the tens of millions of people new to D&D with 5E.

My darkvision proposition would be to bring it back as infravision (with all the implied limitations vis a vis darkvision, but also advantages like seeing footprints and air currents) and make it costly (character build wise) to acquire (as in earlier editions). In fact, add a bunch of exotic senses, ultravision, cat vision, jewel smelling a la DCC, magentic field detection, echolocation, etc., with various advantages and limitations. Flavorful, gameable, and sommmmeeewhat lore compatable. One can dream!

For my money, you just need an explanation for why the PCs can see and how far.

Fully agreed, PCs should be able to reason about a mechanic in world terms. My workhorse not dealing with darkness in my Darvision Nerfed Homebrew setup, when I don't want to, is "this ruin has ancient magical lighting" or "this cave has bioluminescent mushrooms". And if they truly delve into a totally dark subterranean setup, that's there choice, they are asking for true, terrifying darkness!

Now, one thing that does matter is that players are clever, so if light sources work in different ways, that will come up as they explore and solve puzzles. I personally propose we go the opposite way with D&D to Shadowdark and the like (not that those aren't cool, but they're distinct and very good at what they do), and actually increase the availability of lighting to PCs, at least laterally - i.e. more options. I also think D&D's default rules should include better equipment ideas generally (they're pretty bleh in 5E, possibly the worst edition equipment-wise), because even if those don't interact with mechanics, players will come up with ways to use them. And that should include more actual-fantasy options.

I think I basically agree with this. More lighting options with different mechanics - excellent. But then, Darkvision + Light Cantrips as written sort of smothers this in the crib gameplaywise, right? Why bother with all these different options, except as the equivalent of specifying your PC's hair color, if the Darkvision + cantrip combination make it unnecessary right out of the gate? Why bother with the luminescent bug lamp? You got to feed the bug and it can be killed/posessed, unlike your darkvision, so its right out. What puzzles are left to be solved cleverly?

Spells such as create food and water still exist in Level Up!, and not only does the ranger class still exist in Level Up!, if anything the class has even more widgets with which to interact with exploration or logistical play than does the 2014!5e ranger, much less the 2024!5e ranger. As such I do not agree that "logistics matters" play requires eliminating spells and classes from the game.

That last question strikes me as odd. Among the goals of enabling "logistics matter" play include such things as:

• Making it worth your while to do things like forage for food in the wilderness;
• Making it worth your while to keep track of how much you are carrying;
• Making it worth your while to account for carrying a light source, such as a lantern, sunrod, torch, or what-have-you.

To my mind, that happens not by including rules that are merely punitive ("eat enough food or you starve!") but by integrating decision-points related to logistical considerations into core gameplay and by making it rewarding for players to engage with those decision-points.

Circling back to your last question, another way to put it is that "logistics matter" play makes it worth your while to bring characters like a ranger along - not because they bypass the decision-points during gameplay, but because they add to the possible set of solutions you can apply to those decisions.

---

With respect to logistics in gameplay, the problem with modern D&D, as I see it, is two-fold:

1. In practice, logistical considerations don't actually matter in play, but the game has a surprising plentitude of rules making it out that they do, from the rules for malnutrition to the need to count up weight by the pound.
2. These rules that the game possesses are, more or less, exclusively punitive in nature, with no interesting decision points to be had. You either have enough food or you (eventually) start gaining levels of Exhaustion, for instance.

Obviously, what qualifies as interesting or fun decision-points during play is going to vary from player to player; all the more reason, to my mind, for D&D to either jettison logistics play entirely or to spin it off into an optional rules module, depending on the size of the player base that enjoys such play. In any case I do not think that there is enough demand for logistical play to continue to incorporate it in the core rules of the game.

I think this summarizes how I see things pretty well.

I think Create Food and Water is a fine spell in this context. Your cleric doesn't get it until 5th level or thereabouts, and that still leaves a few levels until it's a cheap spell. I'd make it more like AD&D's version (only feeds 3 humanoids instead of 15, so supplement is still probably required initially) and bump its costliness up a little (as spells are a little more precious in 1e). But philosophically, something that provides a strong counter to a logistical challenge of an earlier tier of play is fun. It's the brokenness out of the gate that bothers me. I mean, why ever take Create Food and Water as a cleric? Food and Water problems RAW were solved levels ago. That choice is mostly a false one.

I am reasonably invested in D&D remaining fairly big tent, though I'm fine with that big tent finding expression through optional modules, as you suggest, provided they are integrate well and are done well (i.e. better than the Bastion system). My reasons for wanting a big tent are:

• I want to play a pretty big tent campaign. Depending on the whims of me and the players, some nights are going to be heroic fantasy, some will be classic dungeon crawling, some are going to be political intrigue, some will be horroresque spelunking in the dark, some will be survival in a desert, some will be will be domain play, some will be wargame-esque mass battles, others will be a mix. All in the same ongoing campaign world, as I think is basically the Gygax dream of D&D. Yeah I could play Shadowdark for a torch-heavy low level dungeon delve, and survival game for my survival logistics fix, but I want a lot more than either of those as well. There aren't that many games that work for this goal - probably AD&D and a few others, but for a group that likes a moderate complexity character build middle ground of 5e, such a transition might take some convincing! Which leads to my next point..
• D&D in its modern incarnation is a very useful coordination mechanism. It's popular, known, has a lot of supporting material, and can be used for a few different styles of play. I can get a decent number of both players and DMs to happily agree to a large scale campaign in it. Moving to an older system or introducing a bunch of questionable homebrew introduces mild to severe friction for this goal.
  
  

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No one needs create food and drink. I conjure a flock of turkeys and fireball them. Roast turkey for dozens. Ice Storm and there is plenty of water for everyone. If I have this magic running out of food and water is nonsensical.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

No one needs create food and drink. I conjure a flock of turkeys and fireball them. Roast turkey for dozens. Ice Storm and there is plenty of water for everyone. If I have this magic running out of food and water is nonsensical.

If you think a fireball will cook a turkey, I'm guessing you UberEats instead of doing your own cooking?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wasn't trying to gotcha you, just replying to the other poster And like I said, create food n' water is heavily nerfed from the 5e version, which provides food and water for !fifteen! people. A5E creates enough for two or three, since its text suggests you're sacrificing one supply (serving?) to create three.

Yeah, I edited my post to correct that. I didn't mean you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No one needs create food and drink. I conjure a flock of turkeys and fireball them. Roast turkey for dozens. Ice Storm and there is plenty of water for everyone. If I have this magic running out of food and water is nonsensical.

How are you conjuring a flock of turkeys?

 

[Micah Sweet]

My synthesis of these two positions, which I both agree with, is that the purpose of darkness mechanics is to adjudicate darkness, and this is usually ultimately as a tool to heighten tension. Simulating well enough that it is a challenge when you'd expect it to be a challenge and that it can be countered with approaches and effects that you (player or DM) can judge reasonably well is what makes it work as a tension heightener. A little bit of light logistics (versus the alternative) tends makes light/dark less of a gotcha and more of a tool, because it's not just the DM saying "surprise, magical darkness" (that can be fun too, but it's less effective when that's the default encounter with the dark), as the players can plan for it both prior to and during the encounter.



I doubt any of my non-DnD playing friends have heard of Critical Role (even the majority of my D&D playing friends). Some may have played BG3, purely as a video game, but mostly not. I think at best the average non-D&D player of young-to-mid millennial age (my social target audience, some of whom are however quite amenable to playing), as far as fantasy goes, maybe knows the LoTR movies, GoT, Harry Potter, Shrek, a selection of adventure movies/video games/books with mild fantasy elements, Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail + Princess Bride (if they are of a certain age), and vague recollections of myth/fairy tales. Maybe a Miyazaki movie. Given this, the quirks of D&D fantasy beyond what has soaked into the popular culture (which I'd argue contains a lot more torches than darkvision, even today) are not really on their radar!



My darkvision proposition would be to bring it back as infravision (with all the implied limitations vis a vis darkvision, but also advantages like seeing footprints and air currents) and make it costly (character build wise) to acquire (as in earlier editions). In fact, add a bunch of exotic senses, ultravision, cat vision, jewel smelling a la DCC, magentic field detection, echolocation, etc., with various advantages and limitations. Flavorful, gameable, and sommmmeeewhat lore compatable. One can dream!



Fully agreed, PCs should be able to reason about a mechanic in world terms. My workhorse not dealing with darkness in my Darvision Nerfed Homebrew setup, when I don't want to, is "this ruin has ancient magical lighting" or "this cave has bioluminescent mushrooms". And if they truly delve into a totally dark subterranean setup, that's there choice, they are asking for true, terrifying darkness!


I think I basically agree with this. More lighting options with different mechanics - excellent. But then, Darkvision + Light Cantrips as written sort of smothers this in the crib gameplaywise, right? Why bother with all these different options, except as the equivalent of specifying your PC's hair color, if the Darkvision + cantrip combination make it unnecessary right out of the gate? Why bother with the luminescent bug lamp? You got to feed the bug and it can be killed/posessed, unlike your darkvision, so its right out. What puzzles are left to be solved cleverly?


I think this summarizes how I see things pretty well.

I think Create Food and Water is a fine spell in this context. Your cleric doesn't get it until 5th level or thereabouts, and that still leaves a few levels until it's a cheap spell. I'd make it more like AD&D's version (only feeds 3 humanoids instead of 15, so supplement is still probably required initially) and bump its costliness up a little (as spells are a little more precious in 1e). But philosophically, something that provides a strong counter to a logistical challenge of an earlier tier of play is fun. It's the brokenness out of the gate that bothers me. I mean, why ever take Create Food and Water as a cleric? Food and Water problems RAW were solved levels ago. That choice is mostly a false one.

I am reasonably invested in D&D remaining fairly big tent, though I'm fine with that big tent finding expression through optional modules, as you suggest, provided they are integrate well and are done well (i.e. better than the Bastion system). My reasons for wanting a big tent are:

• I want to play a pretty big tent campaign. Depending on the whims of me and the players, some nights are going to be heroic fantasy, some will be classic dungeon crawling, some are going to be political intrigue, some will be horroresque spelunking in the dark, some will be survival in a desert, some will be will be domain play, some will be wargame-esque mass battles, others will be a mix. All in the same ongoing campaign world, as I think is basically the Gygax dream of D&D. Yeah I could play Shadowdark for a torch-heavy low level dungeon delve, and survival game for my survival logistics fix, but I want a lot more than either of those as well. There aren't that many games that work for this goal - probably AD&D and a few others, but for a group that likes a moderate complexity character build middle ground of 5e, such a transition might take some convincing! Which leads to my next point..
• D&D in its modern incarnation is a very useful coordination mechanism. It's popular, known, has a lot of supporting material, and can be used for a few different styles of play. I can get a decent number of both players and DMs to happily agree to a large scale campaign in it. Moving to an older system or introducing a bunch of questionable homebrew introduces mild to severe friction for this goal.
  

I care far less about what D&D does nowadays than I do about having a game that suits my needs.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I doubt any of my non-DnD playing friends have heard of Critical Role (even the majority of my D&D playing friends). Some may have played BG3, purely as a video game, but mostly not. I think at best the average non-D&D player of young-to-mid millennial age (my social target audience, some of whom are however quite amenable to playing), as far as fantasy goes, maybe knows the LoTR movies, GoT, Harry Potter, Shrek, a selection of adventure movies/video games/books with mild fantasy elements, Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail + Princess Bride (if they are of a certain age), and vague recollections of myth/fairy tales. Maybe a Miyazaki movie. Given this, the quirks of D&D fantasy beyond what has soaked into the popular culture (which I'd argue contains a lot more torches than darkvision, even today) are not really on their radar!

I'm a bit put off by this, personally. The level of staggeringly broad assumption here is truly remarkable. Just a real "everyone who plays D&D is basically like me and my friends" vibe for me.

I think you will find, Horatio, that there a lot more and more diverse people who play D&D in heaven and Earth than dreamt of your, er, post.

Like Monty Python, are you kidding me? I haven't heard anyone who would now be much under 40 quote Monty Python in my entire life! Hell it drops off steeply for anyone now under 45. I'm sure there are people out there, but it's not many. And given that "young to mid millennial" is what, 29 to 36, I really doubt it. Princess Bride is a lovely movie, but I really, really wonder how many 29-year-olds have seen it. Also total lack of anime apart from Ghibli? You think more people aged 29 to 36 have watched Monty Python than non-Ghibli fantasy anime? Seems very, very unlikely to me. Plus most people have watched countless minor fantasy things that you're excluding. Plus plus what does "games with mild fantasy elements" even mean? Because games like Skyrim sold 50m+ copies. WoW crossed 100m people who had played like fifteen years ago. Final Fantasy games have sold over 200m copies. BG3 has sold like 20m copies already and it's only been out 2 years. None of these only have "mild" fantasy elements.

Personally, it looks more like you're listing stuff elder Millennials like than the actual age group you're describing. You may be more culturally similar to elder Millennials (I know I am, even though I was born in 1978, so technically an Xennial/Generation Oregon Trail), and that's fine, but I personally think something is biasing your perceptions here.

And you say you're describing "non-D&D" players, but like, future D&D is primarily going to be targeting the 30m to 50m (WotC figures) people who play D&D and similar games. If it doesn't please them at least, it's going to be a flop (c.f. 4E, or conversely, the success of 5E, which made a huge effort to please all D&D players at least a bit). So if you abandon decades of gradually changing D&D tropes to chase some dragon of a 1980s aesthetic, I just can't see that as smart for D&D itself (even though it can be smart for a more specific game).

Sorry I got some real problems with this claim! I'm triggered. I'm stuck on it. I've got hang-ups about it (cue 1970s music)!

think I basically agree with this. More lighting options with different mechanics - excellent. But then, Darkvision + Light Cantrips as written sort of smothers this in the crib gameplaywise, right? Why bother with all these different options, except as the equivalent of specifying your PC's hair color, if the Darkvision + cantrip combination make it unnecessary right out of the gate? Why bother with the luminescent bug lamp? You got to feed the bug and it can be killed/posessed, unlike your darkvision, so its right out. What puzzles are left to be solved cleverly?

Because you can do stuff like roll the bug lantern (which might be a ball or cylindrical) across the floor ahead of you, which you can't do with those. Or have your familiar carry it up to the ceiling or w/e. Light cast on an object can do the same, but you probably want that object with you. Plus more lighting options which aren't torches (which frankly, and I feel like you acknowledged this, are an insane way to try and light an adventuring expedition if you have any other options at all)

Like I said, I'm not talking about mechanical gameplay, that's never going to be where this is interesting, we're talking about some kind of verisimilitude and small-scale roleplayed gameplay.