D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[Crimson Longinus]

To be fair, 2014 and 2024 d&d both have a ton of mechanics that are meta. They have non-magical influence over PCs like 2024 lion roar applying fear. Or like inspiring leader always meaning whatever the other players has their character do or so you end up inspired by them, every short and long rest. They have tons of limited use abilities that aren’t easy to dietetically explain in full. Ki, Battlemaster manuevers, 2nd wind, rage. Heck, even sneak attack being rogue only, as in why can’t my fighter sneak attack while the Barbarian is next to the enemy is meta just without the decision point.

I think we often overlook just how much of this kind of stuff modern d&d has in it.

This is certainly true. It is not as bad as in 4e, but it definitely is there. Like I said, I can tolerate it in moderate amount but I do actually wish we had less of that in 5e. And to some people, such as @Emerikol, what 5e has is too much and I completely get it.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is certainly true. It is not as bad as in 4e, but it definitely is there. Like I said, I can tolerate it in moderate amount but I do actually wish we had less of that in 5e. And to some people, such as @Emerikol, what 5e has is too much and I completely get it.

I find in play I can usually handle them all. It’s usually just after when I take time to reflect that it starts bothering me.

Which might also explain why talking about other games that feature these aspects doesn’t go over well on forums.

There’s just such a clear difference in experiencing play and analyzing play.

 

[Emerikol]

To be fair, 2014 and 2024 d&d both have a ton of mechanics that are meta. They have non-magical influence over PCs like 2024 lion roar applying fear. Or like inspiring leader always meaning whatever the other players has their character do or say you end up inspired by them, every short and long rest. They have tons of limited use abilities that aren’t easy to dietetically explain in full. Ki, Battlemaster manuevers, 2nd wind, rage. Heck, even sneak attack being rogue only, as in why can’t my fighter sneak attack while the Barbarian is next to the enemy is meta just without the decision point.

I think we often overlook just how much of this kind of stuff modern d&d has in it.

I agree with most of these. In the real world there are few human abilities that are resource limited. In a fantasy world with magic they are all magical or plot coupons generally. There are though ways to bring in infrequent powers by martials but there needs to be something in game that activates them. Like rolling a certain number on an attack die or with a different game system just rolling a d6 with every attack and on a d1 you get to use manuever X.

I wouldn't consider the thieves sneak attack to be meta. Fighters can and should get some benefit to sneak attacking but a professional should do better.

 

[FrogReaver]

One thing I've noticed is that the people who aren't bothered by it generally can't even grasp what is being talked about. They make oddball inapplicable responses like they fit what was being said. If I could figure out a way to get them to really understand what is being explained, I might retire on that alone. I think understanding it makes it objectionable. Those who don't find it objectionable generally don't understand it.

Is there someone who understands and doesn't object? Maybe but they don't tend to get into these debates as much if they do exist.

That’s a much healthier take than mine

I just struggle to see what’s so hard to understand about the concept.

 

[TwoSix]

That’s a much healthier take than mine

I just struggle to see what’s so hard to understand about the concept.

I traced back all the quoted posts, but I'm not sure what concept is being talked about here.

As an ex-simulationist, I might be able to understand the objection without actually experiencing it.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes. So do I.

There's no tension between "feeling like I'm a character" and deciding to push as hard as I can (say, by spending a limited resource to boost a roll). Quite the opposite.

I think the tension, though perhaps slight, might come from having to think out-of-character as to what limited (mechanical) resources to spend at that moment in the game, and to what extent to spend them.

Put another way, the character isn't thinking "Should I use two dice or three here?" but the player is, hence that bit of tension.

 

[pemerton]

What they are calling meta, I have called plot coupon or dissociative mechanics. It is a real thing for some of us at least.

We want the abilities of the characters to be known to the characters and activated by player using the characters will and not just the players will. For example, if I have a luck point that I can use whenever I really need a good role, who is thinking about that luck point. Not the character.

I didn't say anything about "luck points", though. The example I gave involved the player spending a point to achieve the character's goal, as aimed at by the character, based on the rating of the character's Climbing ability vs the rating of the Sheer Cliff in the GM's description of the scene.

Giving it your all is a thing the character can do.

 

[pemerton]

In your latest description of the mechanic there was a scenario where the player could just succeed by spending a resource. The character trying really hard cannot fictionally guarantee success. That’s the disconnect.

Huh? In D&D there are things that character succeed at, automatically, all the time: memorising spells, casting spells that don't grant a saving throw, walking from one end of the room to the other, etc, etc.

Since when did succeeding without a roll get equated with metagaming? And why does all that D&D stuff that doesn't require rolls not count as metagaming?

 

[pemerton]

Well, at least how I play it, the wizards spells are diegetic. The wizard knows what spells they have memorised, they know how many they can cast, they intentionally memorise and cast them and this is information they can share with others in-character.

But they can memorise those spells without requiring a roll. @FrogReaver seems to be saying that's metagaming, and you "liked" the post. So I'm having trouble following.

Likewise for casting many of them (eg Fly doesn't need a roll to be successfully cast; nor does Web - the rolls for victims determine whether or not they escape the web, not whether or not it comes into being).

How is spending a spell slot to cast different from spending a "plot point" to climb?

Like if the character is out of plot point, do they know it? How does it feel? How do they communicate it to the others?

The character might feel tired. Exhausted. Spent.

Much like a D&D character who has only a handful of hp left. Or who has spent all but their last 1st level spell slot.

Also, if plot points allow them to succeed without a chance of failure in tasks, is this something the character knows and can plan around? "Ok guys, I can exert myself to guaranteed success three times, but no more. Let's take this into account in our plan to break into Doctor Terrible's bunker of Doom." Like that's kinda silly, right?

I don't see how it's any more silly than a group of D&D players planning around how many levels of exhaustion each of them can take before their PCs are unconscious or dead or whatever.

Are exhaustion levels now metagame too?

Well, that certainly is not controversial matter at all! But in my game it means you were injured in some manner.

My point is that there is no 1:1 correlation between suffering an injury and keeping a tally on a bit of paper. So the latter is not "diegetic".

I think you break this down into steps in a weird way. You all these steps technically happen, but in actual game the whole rolling process is just one smooth and quick thing that represents the climbing attempt.

And in play, the whole resolution by spending a "plot point" - for those familiar with the game - is just one smooth and quick thing. Which is my point: you asserted that it must mean more time spent thinking about rules than being my character. But there's no actual reason to think it must.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's more a question of whether the rules are there to reflect the fiction or the fiction is there to reflect the rules. Which comes first?

Example, assuming gravity works the same as on Earth:

If, based on our own real-life observations, a typically strong (Human) character can jump 4 feet straight up then does the rule match that? (fiction first)

Or does a rule that says a typically strong character's maximum vertical jump is 10 feet force the fiction to bend to suit that rule? (rules first)

False Dichotomy.

I have read stories where the Rules are part of the Fiction. Neither one has to "Come first" because they are the same thing. You may not like those stories, you may not even be aware of those stories. But they do exist.

And your example is also poorly constructed. You posit that the rule saying a character leaping 10 ft "bends the fiction" but that is false. For example, if my fiction is set in a Wuxia Cultivation story, then a "strong" character being able to leap 10 ft isn't bending the fiction towards being less true to the tropes of those stories. It is actually far far too conservative depending on what we mean by "strong", as a "young master" archetype from those stories should be able to trivially leap 30 or 40 ft. Or let us look at strong characters in the superhero genre. Can Black Panther or Captain America leap 10 ft straight up? Obviously yes.

All this has done is, if we insist on being on Earth and using Earth gravity and the fiction of the game saying that an average NBA player can only leap 4 ft straight up... is tell us that the typically strong CHARACTER is stronger and has a better leap than the average NBA player. Because the fiction is not limited by the reality of Earth.