D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[pemerton]

Many people are not interested in games that mechanize emotional drives and intentions. This is a preference.

That doesn't seem relevant to the post of mine you quoted, which was about the relationship between immersion and certain mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

F

For my part I pretty much always want the rules to reflect the fiction, but there are many games that operate differently and they all have their fans too.

Except the part of the fiction that pertains to emotions!

 

[pemerton]

There is no correlation for you, because you have a different preference.

Nor for @Crimson Longinus, judging from his posts upthread.

Have you played Rolemaster? Did it immerse you?

 

[pemerton]

Whereas swinging a sword, performing a combat maneuver, or casting a spell are inherently actions the character is taking.

All I would I would add is that, in D&D, it is the player who decides (by rolling their dice and adding their bonuses) whether or not the NPC they are attacking is able to duck; and it is the player who decides that their PC does not sneeze or shake at the exact moment they need to clearly speak the words of a spell, and perform its intricate gestures.

The need for a roll to sneak or climb or cut a gem or paint a masterpiece or sing a moving song; but not to cast a spell; is one of the clearest examples in D&D of the rules having no "simulationist" aspirations.

 

[pemerton]

And how does any of that contradict what I said?

I said, "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."

And just to elaborate so I am crystal clear.
I'm saying that the claim that spending a resource to just succeed is diegeticly supported because the character is trying really hard is untrue because diegeticly a character trying really hard doesn't guarantee success.

I still don't understand. In D&D, trying to cast a spell when the preconditions are right (you know the spell, have it prepared, etc) means automatic success. And that is supposed to be diegetic.

But you say that spending a resource to try extra-hard, and thereby guaranteeing success, is not diegetic.

I don't understand the difference.

 

[FrogReaver]

I still don't understand. In D&D, trying to cast a spell when the preconditions are right (you know the spell, have it prepared, etc) means automatic success. And that is supposed to be diegetic.

But you say that spending a resource to try extra-hard, and thereby guaranteeing success, is not diegetic.

I don't understand the difference.

I'm running out of ways to say this. Trying extra hard doesn't guarantee success, therefore a mechanic that models trying extra hard by having the effect be automatic success is not diegetic. Casting a spell providing the preconditions are right, does guarantee success (at least in D&D fiction *of the spell cast itself and not necessarily the effect, ex: hold person can miss and do nothing), so modeling that by having the spell casting mechanic always be successful is diegetic (providing the preconditions are there).

Please engage with my response instead of just repeating your question.

EDIT: hopefully the clarifications help

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I'm running out of ways to say this. Trying extra hard doesn't guarantee success, therefore a mechanic that models trying extra hard by having the effect be automatic success is not diegetic. Casting a spell providing the preconditions are right, does guarantee success (at least in D&D fiction *of the spell cast itself and not necessarily the effect, ex: hold person can miss and do nothing), so modeling that by having the spell casting mechanic always be successful (providing the preconditions are there) is diegetic.

Please engage with my response instead of just repeating your question.

That reasoning is questionable because what it leads to is the conclusion that spellcasting must be a trivially simple activity like snapping your fingers (actually easier), but at the same time spellcasting is restricted specifically to some classes (while presenting the activity itself as something that is actually complex to learn).

Why? Because there's pretty much nothing that can prevent a spellcaster from casting a spell. You could be exhausted to the point of near death while being grappled by the kraken itself on board of an enormous ship in a storm during a rain of meteors, and only death would prevent you from casting spells.

Spellcasting in D&D is terribly designed.

 

[FrogReaver]

That reasoning is questionable because what it leads to is the conclusion that spellcasting must be a trivially simple activity like snapping your fingers (actually easier), but at the same time spellcasting is restricted specifically to some classes (while presenting the activity itself as something that is actually complex to learn).

There's a bunch of plausible explanations. The simplest being that spell casting is complex to learn but simple to perform once that eureka moment occurs. Learning most any math at or just beyond one's current level is probably a good real world example for most people.

Why? Because there's pretty much nothing that can prevent a spellcaster from casting a spell. You could be exhausted to the point of near death while being grappled by the kraken itself on board of an enormous ship in a storm during a rain of meteors, and only death would prevent you from casting spells.

As a simple example, grappling a casters free hands should suffice to shut off any spellcasting requiring a somatic component. What hoops the DM requires one to jump through to do that and maintain it might make it not an effective option, but it's definitely an option.

Spellcasting in D&D is terribly designed.

I don't disagree.

 

[James Gasik]

There's lots of things you can do in the current model of D&D that doesn't require a die roll. You can jump a set amount based on your Strength, with an optional roll if the DM wishes to allow you to jump more.

You can climb or swim automatically, unless the DM rules there are few handholds or the water is especially rough. In most other systems, you'd have to roll to perform any of these feats.

Casting a spell doesn't require a roll in most cases (but sometimes it does), but neither does parrying via the Defensive Duelist Feat.

I could go on, but the absence or presence of a die roll doesn't mean something it trivially simple- it just means that the designers of the system felt that some things should be allowed to happen, to keep the game running smoothly.

After all, we've seen what happens when WotC decides to get in the weeds of how complicated a task could be- just look at 3.5's systems for grappling and other combat maneuvers, for example.

Streamlining the process might not be to some people's taste, but that's the choice that was made. You don't have to like it, and nobody is forcing you to.

You can accept, adapt, or pass on the current iteration of the game's rules, just as with every other iteration. If you believe D&D peaked in 1974, for example, nothing someone who disagrees with you is going to make you suddenly like or accept 5e. Or 4e. Or 3e. Or 2e.

And the same holds true for people who like other versions.

So at this point, is everyone just arguing to argue? This is one of those debates that has no real end, it just goes dormant and resurfaces at another time. Like is the Martial/Caster divide real, was there really a Hickman Revolution, Arneson vs. Gygax, what the Bard, Ranger (or any class for that matter) should be like, to multiclass or not, whether Monks are terrible or Katanas are the bestest weapon everer, Dogs vs. Cats, Tomayto or Tomahto, etc. etc..

It all comes down to "this is what I prefer, and I think it's better than whatever other people like" lol. And you know what? It's ok to have preferences!

And it's ok to gripe about them, but generating post after post of "you're wrong!" and "nuh uh!" isn't really making any headway, is it?

 

[tetrasodium]

That reasoning is questionable because what it leads to is the conclusion that spellcasting must be a trivially simple activity like snapping your fingers (actually easier), but at the same time spellcasting is restricted specifically to some classes (while presenting the activity itself as something that is actually complex to learn).

Why? Because there's pretty much nothing that can prevent a spellcaster from casting a spell. You could be exhausted to the point of near death while being grappled by the kraken itself on board of an enormous ship in a storm during a rain of meteors, and only death would prevent you from casting spells.

Spellcasting in D&D is terribly designed.

It's a 5e problem not a d&d problem. 4e was a bit too different for comparison but ad&d2e and 3.x had a lot of things that could interrupt spellcasting with a concentration check for a spell of the level being cast (or worse).