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

[GobHag]

I recall PF2e being even more permissive with light: Darkvision has no distance limit, works on magical darkness, and has no dim light radius, it's just all bright.

It is, but also because there's an extra step between non and Darkvision, low light. And one extra step beyond that called Greater Darkness which can only be seen through with greater darkvision.

I'd argue that it isn't self-defeating at all, like I said, It's meant and treated like just another aspect that might hinder a character like difficult terrain, is it 'self-defeating' when a level 1 character can have fire resistance(and remember that PF2's resistance is numerical and not a flat halving) so they can walk past a line of hot coal without taking any damage and at high-level might be able to just completely resist the fire damage from a bonfire? Does that mean fire should just be removed from the game?

Double Slice sidesteps the penalty from successive attacks, does that mean the penalty from successive attacks shouldn't exist? Of course not, there's opportunity cost for taking darkvision at the low level, it's not a big cost but it is a cost. And chugging darkvision elixir at level 3 will take a dent to the party's economy.

 

[Distracted DM]

I have, it's great - my table of players/DMs does like the slightly chunkier character builds of 5e though. I think the ideal would be something in between 5e and AD&D, but nobody afaict has made this yet! But I haven't looked at Level Up/A5e.

Shadow of the Weird Wizard, check that out.

Level Up is 5e with more 3e options, and Bo9S-Tomb of Battle martial maneuvers.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

@Pamphylian

I think you’ve put your finger on a real throughline in D&D design, not just a quirk of 5e. From the very beginning, the game has included subsystems that look like they should create scarcity or tension, but then immediately introduces ways to trivialize them. Darkness is countered by darkvision or cheap light sources; food requirements are erased by spells, backgrounds, or generous foraging rules; money and time lose their teeth once characters gain access to magical shortcuts.

This pattern isn’t an accident—it’s baked into the identity of D&D. The rules gesture toward logistical challenges because they’ve always been there, carried forward as a kind of inherited DNA. But D&D has also always prioritized a style of heroic play where those same challenges are never meant to actually stop the adventure. The result is that many subsystems end up in an odd “half-alive” state: they exist to be gestured at, but the game’s design philosophy ensures they won’t stay relevant for long.

That’s where your “self-defeating rule” framing fits so well. It’s not that the mechanics are broken in themselves, but that they’re built into a system that has always pulled in two directions—simulationist trappings on one side, heroic streamlining on the other. Other RPGs pick a lane: Torchbearer leans fully into scarcity, 13th Age discards it entirely. D&D keeps both, which means the DM who wants scarcity to matter has to patch around the very tools the game provides.

In that sense, this is less a bug of a particular edition and more a feature of D&D as a whole. The design has always preserved survival mechanics as part of its legacy, even while consistently undercutting their weight in actual play.

 

[payn]

I definitely think darkness as a threat is a big part of heroic fantasy (if I understand the category). Consider the Hobbit:

Imagine if Bilbo had darkvision or the light cantrip! (I know 5e Halflings don't have darkvision, but I guess my point is there is little chance of your average PC finding themselves in this interesting situation). Darkness is scary in Lord of the Rings, Conan, GRR Martin's works, various myth...I also think by its nature D&D tends to be at least partly tragicomedy along with the heroism, even these days. "It's pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue." If your PC is in that situation, well it's probably at least a little funny.

Getting all the way to death by starvation or dying of thirst is admittedly not as common in fantasy literature, but survival challenges do come up, and I think the object of the a food system is to put logistical pressure on plans where appropriate, rather than to be a ubiquitous consideration: you are crossing this desert or this mountain range, how will you survive the journey? What happens if you get lost or your food gets soaked in dragon bile? How deep will you delve into this dungeon before you must turn back? What do you do when Gollum throws all your lembas bread off the cliff and blames it on your halfling? Dungeon Meshi spends a lot of time on the eating part, but underlying this is the fact they are constantly thinking about the logistics of dungeon delving, and how much deeper to go. The threat of running out of food/water is a tool in the toolbox for creating challenge and drama.

And he's more antiheroic, but I seem to remember Vance's Cugel the Clever getting pretty desperate for food between villages...

Yeah... folks have been there done that and have an entire closet full of the t-shirts. Dungeons and Dragons has grown beyond sword and sorcery and Bored of the Rings. It's just not what its emulating anymore.

Though, to be fair, folks are often wondering exactly what it emulates becasue it has a big tent message. Though, Fantasy supers fans dont really feel satisfied either. D&D has settled into a kinda does it, you probably have to lean into it, and the rules wont default supply it. Most folks seem ok with making it work though, but folks looking for something as specific as Tolkien simulator, are going to be disappointed.

Edit: What @Jacob Lewis said.

 

[Pamphylian]

@Pamphylian

I think you’ve put your finger on a real throughline in D&D design, not just a quirk of 5e. From the very beginning, the game has included subsystems that look like they should create scarcity or tension, but then immediately introduces ways to trivialize them. Darkness is countered by darkvision or cheap light sources; food requirements are erased by spells, backgrounds, or generous foraging rules; money and time lose their teeth once characters gain access to magical shortcuts.

This pattern isn’t an accident—it’s baked into the identity of D&D. The rules gesture toward logistical challenges because they’ve always been there, carried forward as a kind of inherited DNA. But D&D has also always prioritized a style of heroic play where those same challenges are never meant to actually stop the adventure. The result is that many subsystems end up in an odd “half-alive” state: they exist to be gestured at, but the game’s design philosophy ensures they won’t stay relevant for long.

That’s where your “self-defeating rule” framing fits so well. It’s not that the mechanics are broken in themselves, but that they’re built into a system that has always pulled in two directions—simulationist trappings on one side, heroic streamlining on the other. Other RPGs pick a lane: Torchbearer leans fully into scarcity, 13th Age discards it entirely. D&D keeps both, which means the DM who wants scarcity to matter has to patch around the very tools the game provides.

In that sense, this is less a bug of a particular edition and more a feature of D&D as a whole. The design has always preserved survival mechanics as part of its legacy, even while consistently undercutting their weight in actual play.

Well put. I pick on 5e because I have the most experience with it and no experience with 2e-4e. The difference between 5e and earlier TSR versions seems to be the abruptness of the trivialization: it seems like early TSR editions introduced the counters to these subsystems either as the games progressed or at cost (like taking a more limited demihuman character) - which makes a little more sense. At a certain point, the cleric can take over making food, and their is no point in having a powerful wizard in the Vancian mold worrying about mundane things like the darkness of a cave. 5e seems to trivialize these things right out of the gate: either because the subsystems are directly self-trivializing (such as starvation), or because things like darkvision and light spells are so available and unassailable even at first level.

My understanding is that many early edition tables ignored these things anyway (I wasn't around then!), but the systems were there in a reasonably functional way at early levels for DMs to use with effect.

My preference for a modern D&D edition would be to not pick a lane. A modern edition of D&D is necessarily a compromise and should accommodate a few different genre's styles of play. Keep the "vestiges" of survival mechanics and simulationism as modular tools that if used are functional and impactful, but can be ignored by those that prefer otherwise.

 

[payn]

Well put. I pick on 5e because I have the most experience with it and no experience with 2e-4e. The difference between 5e and earlier TSR versions seems to be the abruptness of the trivialization: it seems like early TSR editions introduced the counters to these subsystems either as the games progressed or at cost (like taking a more limited demihuman character) - which makes a little more sense. At a certain point, the cleric can take over making food, and their is no point in having a powerful wizard in the Vancian mold worrying about mundane things like the darkness of a cave. 5e seems to trivialize these things right out of the gate: either because the subsystems are directly self-trivializing (such as starvation), or because things like darkvision and light spells are so available and unassailable even at first level.

My understanding is that many early edition tables ignored these things anyway (I wasn't around then!), but the systems were there in a reasonably functional way at early levels for DMs to use with effect.

My preference for a modern D&D edition would be to not pick a lane. A modern edition of D&D is necessarily a compromise and should accommodate a few different genre's styles of play. Keep the "vestiges" of survival mechanics and simulationism as modular tools that if used are functional and impactful, but can be ignored by those that prefer otherwise.

This was actually a big problem starting in at least 3E. "Back to the Dungeon" is what 3E was billed on. If you look not too closely at the ruels, you can kind of see a lot of simulation in there doing just that. Though, if you lean in further you see they also built in all kinds of rules hacks to allow you to say to hell with food, light, travel, etc.. These hacks were so utilized they became standard. I think the lesson WotC took was folks simply dont want to be worrying about that mundane stuff in the 21st century.

 

[GobHag]

My preference for a modern D&D edition would be to not pick a lane. A modern edition of D&D is necessarily a compromise and should accommodate a few different genre's styles of play. Keep the "vestiges" of survival mechanics and simulationism as modular tools that if used are functional and impactful, but can be ignored by those that prefer otherwise.

Well, at this point, why are you complaining then? Isn't this how 5e works now. If the player wants to do survival sim they can just choose to not get Darkvision and Create food?

Seems like self-defeating is your want here

 

[TiQuinn]

Well, at this point, why are you complaining then? Isn't this how 5e works now. If the player wants to do survival sim they can just choose to not get Darkvision and Create food?

Seems like self-defeating is your want here

I think D&D has definitely picked a lane and survival simulation is not it.

 

[Pamphylian]

Yeah... folks have been there done that and have an entire closet full of the t-shirts. Dungeons and Dragons has grown beyond sword and sorcery and Bored of the Rings. It's just not what its emulating anymore.

Though, to be fair, folks are often wondering exactly what it emulates becasue it has a big tent message. Though, Fantasy supers fans dont really feel satisfied either. D&D has settled into a kinda does it, you probably have to lean into it, and the rules wont default supply it. Most folks seem ok with making it work though, but folks looking for something as specific as Tolkien simulator, are going to be disappointed.

Edit: What @Jacob Lewis said.

I suppose I don't actually know what constitutes modern heroic fantasy if even Tolkien (including the films) is outside of it! I can definitely believe that Conan and Vance are pretty far outside the imagination of most modern players, even though their DNA still permeates D&D, in the same way that Arabian Nights does. But what does that leave? Marvel + anime? Genuinely curious. Even if so, I think there is still a level a bit of the old sword and sorcery that lingers on in the play culture as an indirect legacy - go on various DnD reddits and there are DMs asking about the most devious traps to use on their players, and about eccentric deranged Wizard NPCs and other scenarios that do feel "old school fantasy" in spirit. But I am curious what inspiration drives the modern fantasy RPG imagination, because Tolkien still feels very much part of the broader popular conception of fantasy.

 

[payn]

I suppose I don't actually know what constitutes modern heroic fantasy if even Tolkien (including the films) is outside of it! I can definitely believe that Conan and Vance are pretty far outside the imagination of most modern players, even though their DNA still permeates D&D, in the same way that Arabian Nights does. But what does that leave? Marvel + anime? Genuinely curious. Even if so, I think there is still a level a bit of the old sword and sorcery that lingers on in the play culture as an indirect legacy - go on various DnD reddits and there are DMs asking about the most devious traps to use on their players, and about eccentric deranged Wizard NPCs and other scenarios that do feel "old school fantasy" in spirit. But I am curious what inspiration drives the modern fantasy RPG imagination, because Tolkien still feels very much part of the broader popular conception of fantasy.

Depends on the focus of the Tolkien fantasy. I think modern folks want to focus more on being bad ass elves and dwarves running into epic battles then being dirt farming hobbits thrust into a journey thats going to get them killed. One is capability and scope, the other is survival against the odds in the very same story.