D&D 5E Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

[Aenghus]

No, it's not. Everything is due to the DM. If you're the players, you're either tracking your own internal goals, or your success is manifest in part through your ability to achieve the DMs vision, and in part through your ability to persuade him of the merits of yours.

To put it another way, the idea of a success that is manifest in the game world and is contrary to the DM's vision is nonsensical. You can't beat the DM. Which is fine, because D&D is not about players taking on the DM and winning.

I don't subscribe to your above manifesto. I've seen far too many DMs veto entirely reasonable actions, and damage their game in the process, to accept it. Some DMs will admit this after discussion and change their minds, meaning the the players have a chance of success despite the original vision of the DM. To err is human. Even as a DM I'm far from omnipotent. Occasionally I make mistakes, mistakes in rules, in vision, in plot. So, sometimes players make their case and sometimes I acknowledge their arguments have merit and make some changes. Refusal to admit error can be a weakness.

Games aren't static, frozen things, they change as the participants change and learn. I rewrite elements of my world's background sometimes that implies a cascade of changes that make what was formerly unlikely now likely and vice versa. My gameworld isn't rigid, it has flex and can adapt to changing circumstances without shattering.

I get lots of my ideas, my vision from my players. The game isn't only mine, and I value their input even when I don't use it.

I think it's fair to say that most rulers have people working for them that are stronger than they are.

There's some gray area there. However, I think that if anyone's defenses can be defeated by a first level spell, they must not have anything worth defending. If they did, someone would have gotten to it before the PCs.

I think even a very minor lord has mid-level NPCs of various classes working for him, and I think that anyone who is in a position of standing guard or protecting someone knows that if a person casts a spell, you should consider it a hostile act and either attack them or run for help immediately. Barring certain specific exceptions of course (spells from known friendlies, silent/stilled spells that aren't apparent as such).

It doesn't take much to beat a charm; a cantrip can detect an enchantment aura, at which point you know something is wrong. Surely no one gets in to see anyone of consequence without at least that simple test.

I would guess that in many campaign settings, it's entirely reasonable that players can assume/acquire positions of political power commensurate with their capacities and achievements. I don't think that will typically involve them using level 1 charm spells to work their way to the top, but it definitely may happen by other means. Most likely, they'll be awarded titles voluntarily, or perhaps they'll overthrow leaders using much more impressive methods than conversation and low-level magic.

I'm not addressing Charm Person as it's overpowered in social situations in most editions of D&D, IMO because it's designed for dungeons not the social game, and first level attack spells had to be overly powerful when Magic-User's only had one spell a day. It's power distorts the debate.

Actual rulers have to interact with lots of people on a regular basis. Higher nobility had to make regular public appearances, visit other noble residences, and IMO weren't as isolated as modern figures can be. Personal contact was more important with no phones or email. Lesser rulers have to meet farmers and merchants as well as other aristocracy and can be around the public all day.

For rulers with less resources and lots of people to meet, cantrips go only so far, and if they are all being used for magic detection, who is checking for poison? I don't see it possible to scan everyone, or that there is always, always a cantrip spare to scan PCs just to stop their schemes, it beggars belief.

An alternative for high level NPCs is items like the greenstone amulets in Forgotten Realms (which granted protections including Mind Blank) or even artifacts and relics. Royal regalia are a good candidate for providing appropriate protections to royalty.

But really, in some campaigns PCs start or evolve into powerful figures who can expect to be treated with respect in the gameworld in the majority of circumstances. Ordinary NPCs will be afraid of the PCs and will want to avoid offending them. It doesn't mean the PCs automatically succeed, or people won't attack them, but they won't be randomly insulted and I will expect the PCs to respond negatively but appropriately to any insults. I like mid to high level play and that's the situation in my game much of the time. I suspect thats the case in Hussar's game as well.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't subscribe to your above manifesto. I've seen far too many DMs veto entirely reasonable actions, and damage their game in the process, to accept it.

I've very rarely seen that happen, even from my perspective as a player, even having had plenty of DMs who had their problems. Certainly not relative to the amount of unreasonable actions that players push.

But to go back to the point I made about operator error earlier (one that the continuation of that DMG paragraph makes clear as well), the game itself is not responsible for people using it poorly. That's the point of the whole "rocks fall and you die" idea. As a DM, you are absolutely entitled to do just that. But that doesn't mean you should. Why would you?

In the example I'm referencing about interacting with nobles and their henchmen, the question is if the DM is being reasonable and the player unreasonable, is the player entitled to throw the book at the DM and overrule his judgement.

Refusal to admit error can be a weakness.

True, but so can perfectionism. The DM is in charge of everything not because he is always right, but because having someone be in charge enables the game to run quickly and smoothly. ""A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later" (also something that I've seen in the DMG, though that is hardly the original source.

Games aren't static, frozen things, they change as the participants change and learn. I rewrite elements of my world's background sometimes that implies a cascade of changes that make what was formerly unlikely now likely and vice versa. My gameworld isn't rigid, it has flex and can adapt to changing circumstances without shattering.

I get lots of my ideas, my vision from my players. The game isn't only mine, and I value their input even when I don't use it.

All of which I'm totally on board with.

And again, the examples I'm talking about are only if the players do something genuinely wrong. If they don't, no worries. A lot of things fall within the realm of actions that I will accept.

I'm not addressing Charm Person as it's overpowered in social situations in most editions of D&D, IMO because it's designed for dungeons not the social game, and first level attack spells had to be overly powerful when Magic-User's only had one spell a day. It's power distorts the debate.

That's why I think using rules as world-building tools, rather than treating them as exceptions, is valuable. Real world combat has changed drastically over time with the application of technology. Someone with a rifle is "overpowered" relative to someone with a musket. However, the balance between comparable parties never changes.

If we assume that Charm Person exists for everyone, than it follows that there must be other people who've tried to abuse it, and various successes and failures in that regard have shaped the world. If, then, there are people who are in power, we then accept that they have their power even though certain magic exists. It's not just charm magic. They're in castles even though you can teleport. Given all that, we can conclude that the social structures of the world and the powers enumerated in the PHB are integrated, and people have some ways of dealing with things. What those ways are will vary from table to table, but generally, a certain level of cultural competency with regards to dealing with adventurers will be assumed.

But really, in some campaigns PCs start or evolve into powerful figures who can expect to be treated with respect in the gameworld in the majority of circumstances. Ordinary NPCs will be afraid of the PCs and will want to avoid offending them. It doesn't mean the PCs automatically succeed, or people won't attack them, but they won't be randomly insulted and I will expect the PCs to respond negatively but appropriately to any insults. I like mid to high level play and that's the situation in my game much of the time. I suspect thats the case in Hussar's game as well.

High level play is certainly different.

In a high level game, one might face a different question. If the PCs are trying to force their way in to see some noble, did people know they were coming? Are they celebrities whose movements are tracked by many? Are they of cosmic consequence, and do people run divinations on their likely actions, and do poweful entities have some sort of little black book with the PCs names (among others) in it? The scenario is very different.

I don't operate with high-level play as a baseline assumption. I think it's fairly uncommon as a rule. My examples don't really account for how differently things might play out at high levels.

However, the player of a 20th level character doesn't have any more narrative control than the player of a level 1 neophyte, magic or no. What he has is a different playing field. The definition of the reasonableness of his actions has changed based on context.

***

And, indeed I'm right now prepping a high-ish level game, wherein characters may very well be entering fortresses without the owner's permission and having some pretty involved conflicts with authority figures. Which is all well and good, but doesn't mean that my players will suddenly gain an entitlement to dictate outcomes.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Unless you are talking about 4E hit points I disagree. This is because it is, as you say, common for action heroes to not suffer meaningful penalties within a subsequent scene although there is recovery time. But it is also as you say not unknown for heroes to pass out from their wounds or get KO'd within the action scene itself. With classic (non-D&D) hit points this just doesn't happen. Once someone's hit points drop to zero they are out. Without magic they are going to be on a single hit point (or a tiny handful) for the entire rest of the adventure. With 4e hit points it is entirely possible to have someone pass out or be taken out (reduced to 0hp) and have them continue the rest of the adventure while not either being fragile as spun glass or receiving magical healing. They are still wounded (having spent healing surges) but not being stopped or even seriously impeded by them (full hit points). Of course an extended rest should be longer than 8 hours...

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Heroes often pass out from their wounds within any action scene, or in scenes subsequent to actually receiving the injuries, in any novel or within D&D. When Dresden finally catches an unlucky swing from a demon, and that combined with the previous gunshot wound to take him down, he wakes up and keeps on acting even though he's down to a meager handful of hit points. He knows that he's fragile as spun glass at this point, but he keeps going in spite of that, because he's just that stubborn. He feels his wounds, and knows that they matter - even if they don't actually impede any of his abilities, (other than the ability to take a hit without crumpling).

And honestly, if he had been using 4E style hit points, that would ruin a lot of the dramatic tension. So he's down on healing surges, going into the final fight? That doesn't mean anything, because he's at full hit points and will have plenty of time to rest after saving the day.

 

[Hussar]

True, but so can perfectionism. The DM is in charge of everything not because he is always right, but because having someone be in charge enables the game to run quickly and smoothly. ""A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later" (also something that I've seen in the DMG, though that is hardly the original source.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...re-should-D-amp-D-5e-aim/page50#ixzz32UQXrTrN

Which, IME, is not what happens. The result of this method of play, again, IME, is that the game falls down and explodes in argument over and over again because the DM is incapable of seeing that his "good solution" isn't actually all that good. But, because he buys into your "the DM must always have the final say" line of thinking, he doesn't bother with compromise. Why would he? You're saying flat out that he never has to and that he can rely on a single line from the introduction of a the DMG, while ignoring all the other DMing advice in the book, and force his view of the game on the players.

So, we get the situation where the players attempt a skill action that is pulled straight from the skill description in the PHB and are told that it is flat out impossible, not because it violates any rules, or even the intent of the rules (how can it when it's in the example in the books), but because the DM feels that it is impossible. And the DM sits back and points to the DMG if the players try to argue.

The funny thing is, this situation actually happened to me as a DM and I played it exactly as Ahn advocates. ((warning, gaming story, sorry)) I used to run a 3e Scarred Lands campaign set in the City of Mithril. In Mithril, there is a very famous sage and in the text of the setting guide it states how it's very hard to see the Sage and even Kings are forced to wait months or even years to get an audience.

The players, in the course of play, discover a serious threat to Mithril, an extra planar plant thingie that is going to kill everyone. So, they want to know how to send the plants back to their own plane or kill them and decide to see the Sage. The meet the Sage's secretary and are informed that they will have to wait weeks to see the Sage. They explain that it's a Fate of the World problem but are rebuffed.

The rest of the session devolves into increasingly escalating attempts to get in to see the Sage. And, because I'm the DM, and I've decided that None Shall Pass, every attempt fails. The entire session becomes an exercise in frustration and it completely poisons the entire scenario as comments of "railroading" and, "this is " fill the air. I, as DM, get increasingly exasperated, because, well, why can't they just accept that it's not going to happen?

Looking back on it now, I was absolutely wrong. They were engaging the setting, using the assets that they knew about (there were others they could have tried, but, this was the one they thought had the best chances), to overcome the challenges in the scenario and I put down a giant brick wall and wouldn't let them pass. It was one of the worst DMing moments I've had in a long time. No one had any fun and it really did poison that session and probably the next one or two as well.

All because I followed Ahn's DMing advice. I stuck to my guns. I preserved the game world's consistency. Good for me.

Yeah, never again. Next time, it will be, "Ok, this is the third time you've tried to get in, tell you what, the secretary tells you to clean off the blue paint from the donkey, and he'll squeeze you in late tonight. Okay?"

-----------

See, Ahn, the reason I react so strongly and negatively to your DMing style is because I've been there. I've done it. I used to be exactly that. And it was so poisonous to the group. I learned to be a better DM by realising what a mistake this approach is. Actually, let me rephrase that. I learned to be a better DM for the game that I want to play by realise that this approach is not going to achieve what I want out of the game. It's not about me bashing bad DM's. It's about me realising that I was a bad DM and this approach was bad advice for what I wanted to achieve.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And honestly, if he had been using 4E style hit points, that would ruin a lot of the dramatic tension. So he's down on healing surges, going into the final fight? That doesn't mean anything, because he's at full hit points and will have plenty of time to rest after saving the day.

You were saying it didn't mean anything before. But down to two or fewer healing surges really does mean something in 4e if you're playing hardball. Three is ... starting to get dangerous. Four just means the next fight might be pretty unpleasant.

All because I followed Ahn's DMing advice. I stuck to my guns. I preserved the game world's consistency. Good for me.

"Game world consistency" is the biggest overstated argument I am aware of. In the single most conformist culture I am aware of we have sumo wrestlers, tattooed yakuza, and gothic lolita schoolgirls as well as salarymen. The world is not only bigger, more interesting, and more wonderful than I imagine - it's bigger, more interesting, and more wonderful than I can imagine. Nine times out of ten decisions made to support the consistency of the gameworld do so at the expense of the believability of the game world as well as at the expense of the fun everyone is having.

Yes, it's only nine times out of ten. But in my experience the only time players are unreasonable is when you put their backs to the wall. If they are trying something and you haven't hung the sword of Damocles over them they generally try it because they think it should work - sometimes there are reasons why it wouldn't - but in that case it is imperative that the DM (a) shows why it wouldn't and (b) suggests something close to their goal that might do a lot better.

 

[Ahnehnois]

See, Ahn, the reason I react so strongly and negatively to your DMing style is because I've been there.

You really haven't.

I've done it. I used to be exactly that. And it was so poisonous to the group. I learned to be a better DM by realising what a mistake this approach is. Actually, let me rephrase that. I learned to be a better DM for the game that I want to play by realise that this approach is not going to achieve what I want out of the game. It's not about me bashing bad DM's. It's about me realising that I was a bad DM and this approach was bad advice for what I wanted to achieve.

Well, that sounded contradictory.

I have no idea how good of a DM you are or what lessons you've learned, but I'm pretty comfortable with what I'm doing.

And, independently of either of us, the game is the game. There is no "fiat" in the published game, regardless of what either one of us is doing. There is simply a DM who runs the game, and players who play it.

 

[Hussar]

In what way was what I said contradictory? I used to play in the style you advocate and found that it did not work for me.

Which part of that was unclear?

 

[Ratskinner]

But do the injuries ever really cause the protagonist to fail?

I think that depends on the "fail" in question. Does the hero fail to eventually resolve the issue?...usually not. Does the hero win every single encounter along the way?....usually not. Harry Dresden (since you brought him up) makes a habit of "losing" almost every encounter up to the last one. Also, that brings up the problem that others have mentioned...i.e. the guarantee of player victory. If we're going to ensure the PCs victory and ignore any consequences along the way....then why are we even tracking HP?

I mean, protagonists have a pretty low failure rate in general, at least for the important things. I've never seen a case where the pain and injury from one of those previously-incurred wounds causes the hero to miss with his last-chance desperation move and then the bad guy wins. It certainly seems like heroes don't suffer wound penalties. It seems like wounds are just window dressing to make the scene more dramatic, without really impacting anything unless someone is killed (or knocked unconscious).

I disagree. I notice that fictional heroes often change tactics in response to their ongoing injuries/consequences. So, while on the broader scale, the hero may win, the injuries can change how. Traditional D&D HP sortof have that, but only in one dimension and without any real narrative meat. (i.e. "Help! I'm low on HP!") That might make a PC cautious, or more likely to retreat, but it doesn't make them favor their right side, or fight defensively until their vision clears, or...any number of things like that.

If you're talking about the "feeling" of the scene, though, then it might be some combination of easy healing and the fact that D&D is a team game (where most novels have a main protagonist). We really care about the condition of the protagonist, because the fate of the world usually comes down to him, where all PCs are equally important and the survival at least one PC is usually enough to quickly reverse the injuries of all other PCs.

That's not a bad theory, but my experiences with games like Fate and MHRP would argue that the existence of the team rather than solo hero is not a determinant factor. The quick healing might be more of a factor, as those games resist the "fast-healing" vibe of D&D mechanically*.

Of course, you could also just play it as luck/skill/fatigue, and all of the PCs are perfectly fine until they collapse from a single hit, like a bunch of chumps. They're both consistent, even if I never really seen that done in any of the books.

Well, that's the thing isn't it? The traditional HP system is fine-fine-fine-dead. Not only is that consistent with the mechanics, but you were the one arguing the the characters should be cognizant of the game-rules as counting as their world's physics, weren't you? If so, then the PCs are perfectly aware of their health, stamina, whatever-else-HP-represent as functioning that way. To them, all the sucking chest wounds and arrows-to-the-knee are irrelevant!...and they act it! Thus, the HP system ends up not emulating the fiction well, unless the fiction in question is the Goblins! webcomic.

Also, I very much think there's a limit of how directly one can interpret things from a book/movie in game terms. People tend to see what they want to see. (i.e. Aragorn's a Ranger! No, he's obviously multiclass Ranger-Paladin; Obviously the best system to do LotR would be 1e/2e/3e/4e! etc. etc.) In this case, since HP represent intangibles as well as tangible damage...it can be very difficult to discern when damage is actually taken. Heck, sometimes reasonable people can disagree on whether an event in fiction represented magical action or just excellent mundane ability! I think about the only decent comparison happens in the other direction: start with the fiction that the game produced, and see if that achieved what you wanted.

Of course, (I feel obliged to re-iterate here) the importance of any of this is very much dependent on your playstyle. If you are a hardcore "gamey" or Gamist player, then HP (probably) work excellently for you! If, on the other hand, you are strongly interested in either the story or simulative aspects of rpging, they likely don't. Since most players fall somewhere in the middle of that morass, HP "sorta" work for them.

*That is, in Fate, consequences come in different values. The higher the value, the more damage(stress) that consequence absorbs, but also the longer it takes before you are allowed to recover. That doesn't prevent a D&D-like narrative, though! If you want characters to be repeatedly raised, just make Death a lesser consequence!

 

[Lanefan]

I may be ignorant about baseball - but I'm pretty sure that there are also fouls and balks as other options. And I think the pitcher's allowed to throw to one of the bases (pickoff?)

There's also hits, home runs, etc.; but every pitch that reaches the plate (or somewhere in the general neighbourhood) is, ultimately, either a ball or a strike*.

* - fouls, hits, etc. count as strikes in pitchers' stats. Pickoffs, balks, and other things that don't reach the plate are irrelevant.

=========================================================================
As for low-level rulers, I've often generally played it (with no rules whatsoever to back me up) that the longer a ruler has been ruling the "higher level" he-she is*, up to a certain vague point. A 20-something who just inherited a throne last month probably doesn't have much going for her, but she'll be pretty formidable once she's reigned for 15 years or so.

* - exceptions: someone who was already levelled before taking on rulership e.g. a 1e Fighter setting up her stronghold, or someone who pulls "the Keep" from a deck of many things, or an adventurer who didn't know he was heir to a throne, or even (and this has happened in my game) a reigning monarch PC who would rather adventure than sit a throne; etc.

Lan-"where's my stronghold, dammit"-efan

 

[Ratskinner]

Right, and I'd totally be on board with this, in most circumstances. It just makes sense, intuitively.

What I was saying, though, is that Hit Points as D&D uses them are accurately represented in fiction. In all of the stories, unlike in real life, the heroes have plot importance which guarantees they never fail at an important task because of their wounds. They may make it sound like it's terribly inconvenient to have a broken rib and an arrow sticking from the torso, but it doesn't actually increase their chance of failure - it doesn't imply a penalty.

The problem with that, though, is that in a novel/movie, the hero doesn't have any chances of failure for us to observe. He only has whatever the author comes up with. So Our Hero still defeats the Bad Guy; in game terms, did he do that with or without a penalty? The answer is undefined because he didn't do it in a game. He defeated (or not) the Bad Guy because that's what the author/plot/editor demanded. That "plot importance" you're talking about invalidates the entire idea that HP (or any other wound/health system) are even going on. HP (as a system) do not offer plot protection to the heroes, because they don't actually prevent them from dying!

I mean, that's one of the big holes in the 2e-era DM advice. Yes! make your heroes epic, give them prophecies, etc. Well, it kinda stinks if you start with a prophecy says Harry will defeat Voldemort and then Harry goes and gets gacked by falling of his broom before the end of book 2! So just fudge the rolls!...... You can't say a system is great at emulating something if you need to be prepared to ignore that system's results to maintain that emulation!

To emulate something like plot importance, you'd need to give a character goals/destinies/or somethings. Fulfilling them would make the character vulnerable to death, but so long as they remain unfulfilled and still valid, the character would be immortal (and, if you are correct about not-failing, unstoppable in any important task.) How you motivate players to cause those destinies to be fulfilled..I dunno, but this is only a part of a theoretical storygame system...which will probably consume some of my thinking time in the near future.

HP also don't simulate the fiction, because they actively discourage the participants from even paying lip service to the severity or nature of their wounds. ("He hits you for 10" doesn't count.) I mean, think about how many interesting wounds characters in fiction suffer...now compare that to D&D. At least IME, most D&D heroes seem to repeatedly suffer the same sort of nebulous non-debilitating torso wounds fight after fight. I mean, its a strange sort of system that has you preferentially narrating chest wounds rather than broken arms...because the broken arms strain the simulationist sensibilities when the character needs that arm for spellcasting or raising a shield.