D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[TwoSix]

How can a character possibly not be aware of its class, in terms of said class being how it makes its living? A Fighter knows she's a fighter. A Thief knows he's a thief. A Wizard knows she's a mage. And so on.

That's like saying a plumber isn't aware of being a plumber or a scientist isn't aware of being a scientist.

Because time is a flat circle, here's a time we spent 700 posts discussing this idea 9 years ago.

D&D 5E - Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?

To clarify, do class names have a concrete meaning in your game world? Do they exist as understood professions with associated abilities? If someone introduces themselves as a "Fighter" is it automatically understood and assumed that they would have the class abilities of the Fighter class, as...

www.enworld.org

 

[FrogReaver]

But they're also not locked into one particular choice. I have an independent existence (probably, but that's a question for philosophers), and I can make a ton of choices.

In a given set of internal and external circumstances the player makes a choice for the character. That the player might make that same choice in those same circumstances every time without fail doesn’t mean he didn’t have the ability to make another choice, it simply means that he would have always made the same choice. People mix up those concepts way to often.

No individual with emotions is going to make the same choices every time in the highly stressful situations PCs find themselves in.

I disagree, as long as one takes the whole situation, both internal and external factors into account.

 

[Emerikol]

Because time is a flat circle, here's a time we spent 700 posts discussing this idea 9 years ago.

D&D 5E - Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?

To clarify, do class names have a concrete meaning in your game world? Do they exist as understood professions with associated abilities? If someone introduces themselves as a "Fighter" is it automatically understood and assumed that they would have the class abilities of the Fighter class, as...

www.enworld.org

My nuance would be that people are aware of their capabilities and many in the world would know their class name in most cases. The more generic classes like Fighter and Rogue probably have some more specialized names. Wizard and Cleric though I'd say know their classes very well. The point though would be that characters are aware of what they an do. If not then it's a plot coupon.

 

[TwoSix]

My nuance would be that people are aware of their capabilities and many in the world would know their class name in most cases. The more generic classes like Fighter and Rogue probably have some more specialized names. Wizard and Cleric though I'd say know their classes very well. The point though would be that characters are aware of what they an do. If not then it's a plot coupon.

And that's fine, but I've never run it that way, even going back to 2nd edition. I always narrated spellcasters as being aware of their diminishing magical reserves, but not to the level of knowing how many spell slots they had left. Inserting game mechanics into the fiction like that ("I have two webs left and a magic missile!"), to 1990s me, always seemed vaguely munchkin. It's one reason I gravitated towards some of the alternate casting systems in the PO:Spells and Magic book.

I didn't have the words for it when I was young, but I always played back then with the assumption that I knew what the fantasy setting SHOULD be like, and that the rules were, at best, an imperfect model of it.

 

[Emerikol]

And that's fine, but I've never run it that way, even going back to 2nd edition. I always narrated spellcasters as being aware of their diminishing magical reserves, but not to the level of knowing how many spell slots they had left. Inserting game mechanics into the fiction like that ("I have two webs left and a magic missile!"), to 1990s me, always seemed vaguely munchkin. It's one reason I gravitated towards some of the alternate casting systems in the PO:Spells and Magic book.

I didn't have the words for it when I was young, but I always played back then with the assumption that I knew what the fantasy setting SHOULD be like, and that the rules were, at best, an imperfect model of it.

I had to make slots a real thing in the world. Otherwise they are plot coupon and that would have ruined the game for me. So slots, memorization/preparing of spells was all very real. If you always see a divide between the mechanics and the gameplay then I can see how you think as you do but that is very much pawn stance to me. I'm going for author stance.

For me, when a wizard casts spells and he uses a slot, that is something he could easily test. What wizard would quickly learn all about slots by simple experimentation. Wizards are curious people who want to know the bounds of their abilities. I do agree that 5e's approach is pretty hard so I'd have to have another paradigm.

For example, I categorized spell levels in my games as spells of the 1st circle. Wizards in training where taught that there were 9 circles in total. Nowadays with the ability to "burn" slots for lower levels spells etc... I'd have to develop a new paradigm but I would if I played 5e.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For example, I categorized spell levels in my games as spells of the 1st circle. Wizards in training where taught that there were 9 circles in total.

Same! Except on my world it is commonly thought that there are eight circles of magic, as the ninth circle magic is so rare it is basically mythical.

 

[TwoSix]

I had to make slots a real thing in the world. Otherwise they are plot coupon and that would have ruined the game for me. So slots, memorization/preparing of spells was all very real. If you always see a divide between the mechanics and the gameplay then I can see how you think as you do but that is very much pawn stance to me. I'm going for author stance.

For me, when a wizard casts spells and he uses a slot, that is something he could easily test. What wizard would quickly learn all about slots by simple experimentation. Wizards are curious people who want to know the bounds of their abilities. I do agree that 5e's approach is pretty hard so I'd have to have another paradigm.

Sure. I'm just saying for 1990s me, such behavior would have definitely gotten you labeled as "munchkin" and not invited back. The fiction always came first. If the rules didn't match what the fiction should be, then you bend the rules or make some new ones. And having the characters be aware of any sort of game mechanics was not the correct approach to the fiction (again, 1990s me).

Even now, with almost 30 years of adding new mental approaches to RPGing to my skillset, mapping "one mechanic -> exactly one narration" is still one of my least favorites. I can do it for more restricted games (Dolmenwood is an example of that type of play that I'm planning on trying), but it doesn't work for me in the toolbox that is D&D.

 

[Emerikol]

Sure. I'm just saying for 1990s me, such behavior would have definitely gotten you labeled as "munchkin" and not invited back. The fiction always came first. If the rules didn't match what the fiction should be, then you bend the rules or make some new ones. And having the characters be aware of any sort of game mechanics was not the correct approach to the fiction (again, 1990s me).

Interesting. Munchkin would be something different. I was playing in the early 80's on. Until recently it never even occurred to me to think of it any other way.

Even now, with almost 30 years of adding new mental approaches to RPGing to my skillset, mapping "one mechanic -> exactly one narration" is still one of my least favorites. I can do it for more restricted games (Dolmenwood is an example of that type of play that I'm planning on trying), but it doesn't work for me in the toolbox that is D&D.

It's probably why I've rejected everything coming out of WOTC from 4e onward. Certain mechanics are dissociative to me. They break my immersion and lessen the verisimilitude. This is why I rejected daily martial powers. I didn't see an in game reason for why a fighter could only do something once per day. Same for second wind in 5e.

 

[TwoSix]

Interesting. Munchkin would be something different. I was playing in the early 80's on. Until recently it never even occurred to me to think of it any other way.

We always used "munchkin" for play that elevated mechanics over the story. Choosing powerful options over concept was a big issue. Narrating mechanics into the play ("I have 25 HP left! I only have 2 more spells!") was another.

It's probably why I've rejected everything coming out of WOTC from 4e onward. Certain mechanics are dissociative to me. They break my immersion and lessen the verisimilitude. This is why I rejected daily martial powers. I didn't see an in game reason for why a fighter could only do something once per day. Same for second wind in 5e.

That's fine. I spent a long time on these forums litigating 4e, I have no desire to keep doing so.

 

[Emerikol]

We always used "munchkin" for play that elevated mechanics over the story. Choosing powerful options over concept was a big issue. Narrating mechanics into the play ("I have 25 HP left! I only have 2 more spells!") was another.

yeah in my games since hit points are a communication abstraction my characters will just shout out "I'm hurting or I'm wounded bad" if they are low on hit points. Spells though were real in world things so we could very well say "That was my last fireball".

That's fine. I spent a long time on these forums litigating 4e, I have no desire to keep doing so.

Yeah. I agree best not to beat that horse. Glad you see where I'm coming from perspective wise.