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

[Pamphylian]

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 mostly complain (though this was only partially my intent) because I play 5e and like many aspects of it, but think some could be better. Perhaps this is sort of a self defeating place to be but what can one do! If you are coming to D&D with no detailed historical context and see a 3rd level spell called Create Food and Water, I don't think it is crazy for you to think, ah! I might have to worry about Food and Water in some contexts at low levels! The fact that you don't but there nonetheless exist these subsystems is on its face a sort of strange approach to designing rules that I think is worth looking at and thinking about how to do it better, at least because it is pretty pervasive in the game and similar games.

To your second point, I think "let the player choose how challenging they want the game" is maybe not the best game design. As they say, players will optimize the fun out of game if you let them. They would take Fly and a sword that did triple damage at first level if allowed. You lay challenges at their feet, and the fun for them is finding a response to them that requires some decision making. "Gimp your self for fun" might be fun for some but I don't think it is something to build a game around. In any case, my point is that I think it would be a worthwhile endeavor to fix the subsystems I'm talking about and make them ignorable by tables that don't want them, and that this would be better than designing them as nonfunctional on purpose.

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.

We did this once in 3e. All the PCs were NPC classes, villains got PC classes.

Did it in Earthdawn with non-Adept PCs who relied on skills. They had Farmer & artisan-halfmagic, so they couldn't use any magic weapons or armor. Well, the farmers could bind fernweave armor because it was a plant.

Hard to do in 5e because it doesnt have frameworks for non-PC class creatures, its all up to the GM to fabricate.

 

[GobHag]

The fact that you don't but there nonetheless exist these subsystems is on its face a sort of strange approach to designing rules that I think is worth looking at and thinking about how to do it better, at least because it is pretty pervasive in the game and similar games.

I was being a dick in the latter half--unapologetically however--but considering the large amount of tables that do straight up ignore these rules even when they were 'better' then we've reach the great equilibrious balance for 5e's playerbase; It exists so that those who are used to it don't complain much but those who despise these gameplay can easily ignore it.

I'd argue that the way 3e+ editions are designed with interlocking subsystems and character options necessitates that to make a better designed darkness and survival rule, then those who despise it are forced to interact with it more.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I mostly complain (though this was only partially my intent) because I play 5e and like many aspects of it, but think some could be better. ....If you are coming to D&D with no detailed historical context and see a 3rd level spell called Create Food and Water, I don't think it is crazy for you to think, ah! I might have to worry about Food and Water in some contexts at low levels!

I appreciate you think tier2 is low levels. Most people think that's the second half of a campaign.

The basic premise in d&d is that everything is some kind of challenge and leveling means you need bigger challenges. Goblins cease to be a challenge, then ogres, and even giants all are "defeated" by that accursed mechanic "leveling".

D&d was all about breaking through this ceiling and getting to the next one. They went to level 36 in the Master box of OD&D. (Arguably, Immortals took you to 72 in the form of 36 Immortal levels)

Some games reject leveling utterly and have very low ceilings. Others give you power but never eliminate the risk. Runequest is like that: I had a character who knocked a dragon unconscious one encounter and then we had a near-total TPK vs giant crocodile the next.

Perhaps this is sort of a self defeating place to be but what can one do!

D&D cannot be all things to all people. Running a different game is what you do. Its good as a change and can make you appreciate what different games do well and how desifn decisions have a variety of consequences. (Like TPKs from encounters you never would have expected)

 

[Pamphylian]

I was being a dick in the latter half--unapologetically however--but considering the large amount of tables that do straight up ignore these rules even when they were 'better' then we've reach the great equilibrious balance for 5e's playerbase; It exists so that those who are used to it don't complain much but those who despise these gameplay can easily ignore it.

I'd argue that the way 3e+ editions are designed with interlocking subsystems and character options necessitates that to make a better designed darkness and survival rule, then those who despise it are forced to interact with it more.

I am seeing two options here: 1) The rules exist but are nonfunctional and those who despise can ignore it and those who are used to it don't complain too much (FAIL on the latter count, here I am complaining too much). 2) The rules exist but are functional and those that despise can ignore it (and it is suggested that they do so) and those who are used to it don't complain. 2) Seems straightforwardly superior. Even for those that wish to ignore these things, because they explicitly no longer have to waste time taking spells and abilities that negate things that won't matter in their campaigns.

I don't think it's rocket science to make these things functional but modular enough not to be bothersome to the haters, it merely takes the DM saying, "I'm not going to worry about darkness to much in this campaign. Don't waste your spell slot on that." All set. I fully understand that it is probably not monetarily worth the effort for WotC to do this. But this is the internet, and the internet is for dreaming.

I appreciate you think tier2 is low levels. Most people think that's the second half of a campaign.

The basic premise in d&d is that everything is some kind of challenge and leveling means you need bigger challenges. Goblins cease to be a challenge, then ogres, and even giants all are "defeated" by that accursed mechanic "leveling".

D&d was all about breaking through this ceiling and getting to the next one. They went to level 36 in the Master box of OD&D. (Arguably, Immortals took you to 72 in the form of 36 Immortal levels)

Some games reject leveling utterly and have very low ceilings. Others give you power but never eliminate the risk. Runequest is like that: I had a character who knocked a dragon unconscious one encounter and then we had a near-total TPK vs giant crocodile the next.



D&D cannot be all things to all people. Running a different game is what you do. Its good as a change and can make you appreciate what different games do well and how desifn decisions have a variety of consequences. (Like TPKs from encounters you never would have expected)

Tier 2 is where you can now cross entire deserts without thinking about food and water unless you are an absolutely enormous party, if you have a cleric with that spell. Tier 1 is were you still might still have to think about food/water sometimes (if were to go by just the existence of the spell), but the rules ensure that you don't have to think food at Tier 1 either. So with rules as written, you negate that basic premise that there is challenge that you overcome by leveling, at least in this domain, because the food question is solved right out of the gate at level 1.

Agree that D&D can't be all things to all people. I also play other games. But modern D&D should be some things for a decent spread of people, I think it benefits from being a flexible compromise (as it is now, but could be a better one). I argue that these systems are an area where it could be something more to more people at no cost to any of the other people. Free game design lunch.

 

[occam]

And the Joys of At Least Occasional "Simulationism"

There's an approach to rule-making that shows up in a few places in D&D 5e (and heroic fantasy cousins like Pathfinder) that I find a bit strange. It is that of the subsystem that contains the seeds of its own trivialization, which I’ll clunkily call a self-defeating rule. I’ll say up front that I find this approach bothersome - but my hope is not for this to be just a thread of complaints, but instead to provoke some rules design discussion!

Example 1): Rules and abilities surrounding light/darkness.
I am sure complaints about Darkvision from DMs are so common as to be extremely tedious, but the design here is maybe the archetypal example of what I am talking about so I will venture forth and boldly risk tedium nonetheless.

D&D has rules around not being able to see things in the dark, not being able to see and do things as well in dim light, as any game where spelunking is a possibility should. However, Darkvision, an ability that trivializes natural darkness (I know it has some limitations, but ime they are pretty situational), is easily available to players at first level at little cost.

If a prospective DM is planning a game where natural darkness is to be a challenge, the game-theoretically rational response of the players is to stock up on PCs with Darkvision right out of the gate. And of course, at least if you are a DM of my limited logistical ability, a party with mostly Darkvision having PCs is basically in practice a party with all Darkvision-having PCs. And to ensure that any possibility of darkness being a factor in the game is truly dead, the Light cantrip provides unlimited production of light at basically no cost at first level as well. The ineffectuality of darkness is overdetermined.

It's worth noting that it hasn't always been this way. In 3e, elves and half-elves had low-light vision (normal vision in dim light, none in darkness), while dwarves and half-orcs had darkvision; while in 4e, all (or essentially all) PC races had low-light vision at best. The two 5e rulesets for Middle-earth have some of this as well: in Adventures in Middle-earth, Dwarves have essentially low-light vision (while Elves have darkvision), and in The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying, Elves have low-light vision, while Dwarves have no special ability to see in the dark at all!

It's an easy nerf for a DM to make, to redefine Darkvision as low-light vision across the board, instead of restricting Species selection. (Maybe Species with extra-good Darkvision, like orcs and drow, could keep it, but two-ish Species instead of over half of all Species poses much less of a problem.)

 

[Jacob Lewis]

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.

I think part of what’s going on here is less a design failure and more a reflection of what D&D has always been about at its core. The game loop is pretty simple: kick down doors, beat up monsters, take their stuff, and level up so you can do it again at a bigger scale. That’s the engine that drives progression.

So why do rules for food, light, or time exist at all if they’re so easily trivialized? I’d argue they’re not really about survival or simulation in the first place. They’re there to create the illusion of a broader strategic game.

If casters never had to think about Light, Create Food & Water, or other utility spells, their only real incentive would be to fill their slots with combat options. And if players never had to track torches or rations, then everyone would just pour all their resources into fighting better. That’s fine for efficiency, but it flattens choice.

By keeping these “red herring” challenges in the rules, D&D gives players the feeling of being thoughtful and resourceful when they prepare or track them. At the same time, the system quietly ensures those challenges never have enough teeth to derail the core loop. The result is a design compromise: the rules gesture at exploration and survival, but always default back to combat as the real heart of play.

That’s why they feel self-defeating—because they are. They’re vestigial by design, included to broaden the surface of the game without ever distracting from its true focus.

 

[soviet]

I think part of what’s going on here is less a design failure and more a reflection of what D&D has always been about at its core. The game loop is pretty simple: kick down doors, beat up monsters, take their stuff, and level up so you can do it again at a bigger scale. That’s the engine that drives progression.

So why do rules for food, light, or time exist at all if they’re so easily trivialized? I’d argue they’re not really about survival or simulation in the first place. They’re there to create the illusion of a broader strategic game.

If casters never had to think about Light, Create Food & Water, or other utility spells, their only real incentive would be to fill their slots with combat options. And if players never had to track torches or rations, then everyone would just pour all their resources into fighting better. That’s fine for efficiency, but it flattens choice.

By keeping these “red herring” challenges in the rules, D&D gives players the feeling of being thoughtful and resourceful when they prepare or track them. At the same time, the system quietly ensures those challenges never have enough teeth to derail the core loop. The result is a design compromise: the rules gesture at exploration and survival, but always default back to combat as the real heart of play.

That’s why they feel self-defeating—because they are. They’re vestigial by design, included to broaden the surface of the game without ever distracting from its true focus.

I agree that these things are vesitigial now, and have been vestigial for a long time (certainly back to 4e, and probably 3e to a large extent as well).

I don't agree that 'kick down the doors and fight the monsters, lather rinse level up repeat' is what D&D has always been about. I don't think OD&D and AD&D 1 were about that - consider how GP far outweighed kills in terms of XP.

I think what's happened is that over 50 years D&D has changed from effectively a survival game of resource management and worrying about light, sound, encumbrance, traps, and wandering monsters to a more heroic fantasy game where a semblance of those factors is sort of there but has become entirely vestigial. There is a vague notion of these things, and a collective understanding of D&D that suggests these things have weight, but in the actual play loop they are almost entirely absent.

 

[payn]

I am seeing two options here: 1) The rules exist but are nonfunctional and those who despise can ignore it and those who are used to it don't complain too much (FAIL on the latter count, here I am complaining too much). 2) The rules exist but are functional and those that despise can ignore it (and it is suggested that they do so) and those who are used to it don't complain. 2) Seems straightforwardly superior. Even for those that wish to ignore these things, because they explicitly no longer have to waste time taking spells and abilities that negate things that won't matter in their campaigns.

I don't think it's rocket science to make these things functional but modular enough not to be bothersome to the haters, it merely takes the DM saying, "I'm not going to worry about darkness to much in this campaign. Don't waste your spell slot on that." All set. I fully understand that it is probably not monetarily worth the effort for WotC to do this. But this is the internet, and the internet is for dreaming.


Tier 2 is where you can now cross entire deserts without thinking about food and water unless you are an absolutely enormous party, if you have a cleric with that spell. Tier 1 is were you still might still have to think about food/water sometimes (if were to go by just the existence of the spell), but the rules ensure that you don't have to think food at Tier 1 either. So with rules as written, you negate that basic premise that there is challenge that you overcome by leveling, at least in this domain, because the food question is solved right out of the gate at level 1.

Agree that D&D can't be all things to all people. I also play other games. But modern D&D should be some things for a decent spread of people, I think it benefits from being a flexible compromise (as it is now, but could be a better one). I argue that these systems are an area where it could be something more to more people at no cost to any of the other people. Free game design lunch.

Yes, the best design is always one that caters perfectly to your own preferences, while leaving options for folks who prefer differently to adjust.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Edit