D&D 5E The Quest to Reduce "Sameyness" (+)

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, if the intent is to design something familiar, it isn't at fault, but otherwise I agree.


Oh, I don't know. I think things like axes and swords, chain armor and plate, bows and cavalry, and such are "typically" medieval when it comes to RPGs. Throw in magic, wizards, elves, dwarves, etc. and you get the "fantasy" aspect.

Otherwise, yes, the middle ages or medieval period spanned hundreds of years, so at what point in the medieval period you want can differ, but all are commonly established IMO. Samey is good at this point, YMMV of course.

Plate is renascence, not medieval. But the issue is what people wear when they are not wearing armour, which is getting far too familiar.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Plate is renascence, not medieval.

I disagree vehemently:

Plate armour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Plate armour is a historical type of personal body armour made from bronze, iron, or steel plates, culminating in the iconic suit of armour entirely encasing the wearer. Full plate steel armour developed in Europe during the Late Middle Ages, especially in the context of the Hundred Years' War, from the coat of plates worn over mail suits during the 14th century.

Notice: LATE MIDDLE AGES. However, it did continue to be developed, etc. into the Renaissance period.

But the issue is what people wear when they are not wearing armour, which is getting far too familiar.

How is that an "issue"??? (FYI, that was rhetorical.)

It isn't an issue as far as I am concerned and fail to see how it has anything to do with the thread. I mean, really, it is called clothes after all, and are claiming clothes are too "samey"?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Notice: LATE MIDDLE AGES.

The boundary between late medieval and renaissance isn't well defined. But fully articulated plate armour comes in around the same time as gunpowder weapons begin to appear. 5e Breastplate too.

How is that an "issue"???

It's boring and shows a lack of imagination. Same reason sameyness is a problem anywhere.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The boundary between late medieval and renaissance isn't well defined.

It is defined enough to know plate armor (in various forms) existed prior to the Renaissance. If you feel that is untrue, please don't bother replying further.

The 5E Breastplate is also common prior to even medieval times as Greek and Romans had metal (and hardened leather) breastplates.

Again, if you want to debate that, don't bother replying and do some research on personal body armor in different periods.

It's boring and shows a lack of imagination. Same reason sameyness is a problem anywhere.

CLOTHING is boring and samey to you?

Oh, just forget it! You are basically just trolling in a (+) thread. If you continue I'll ignore you and then you won't have to worry about contributing since you don't seem keen to do so.

 

[Lanefan]

It is defined enough to know plate armor (in various forms) existed prior to the Renaissance. If you feel that is untrue, please don't bother replying further.

Straight-up plate mail is late middle ages but to me things like full plate and field plate speak renaissance.

Which is fine with me, as various aspects of my setting are developed to a renaissance level anyway (or even beyond; for example sailing ships in my world can get up to Trafalgar-era design).

CLOTHING is boring and samey to you?

Good timing for this discussion for me, in that the adventure I'm currently running originally* revolved around solving the theft of some fancy (and expensive!) old clothing from a noble's collection.

* - it's since developed into something a bit more serious as one thing leads to another...

 

[ECMO3]

So what's the point of classes then, if any class can be good at any aspect of the game?

Classes provide a set of mechanics to build the character you want and ensure an element of balance. They should not define the character. Certain classes, specifically Warlock, and to a lessor extent Cleric and Druid, have thematic issues that actually do connect the class to the character definition, but even there you can do away with those elements relatively easily.

Either that or you have to choose which bases to leave UNcovered.

Which means you flat can't succeed at some elements in the game or the DM has to build a story without those elements.

That said, if I only had three players I'd absolutely allow them to have more than one PC each (usually capped at two each).

I have played such campaigns and that is difficult and can be troublesome. Not as troublesome as the infamous DM PC, but certainly a problem at times and with some players. It is better if you add a couple NPCs and let the players control them in combat, but to be honest a 4-person party is the norm in 5E and 3 should be as common or more common than 6 players and to do that well you need to be decent at all three pillars with just 3 players.

A game with 3 Players and 3 PCs is a lot more fun than a game with 3 players and 6 PCs.

Also, what often happens is adventuring NPCs are recruited to fill glaring holes, particularly healer and-or sneak; meaning nobody has to play what they don't want to play but you can still round out the party if you want to.

That is a solution, but it is not ideal as you still end up with a large party that slows the game down and is as bad as having a bunch of PCs. It is also not as fun when your hired NPC face manages to talk his way past three guard posts to get into the keep and the baron's quarters. It is far more fun when the PC fighter or ranger does it.

Also if you are really playing NPCs right there is an element of ambiguity because they are not controlled by players and not part of the social contract between players. Are they really going to stick it through with the party? Is it possible they are spys/infiltrators? Will they run when the going gets tough? If the DM is handwaving that and making them essentially rock solid like the PCs then that detracts quite a bit from the story, or worse they essentially become a DM PC.

 

[ECMO3]

Double post

 

[Scars Unseen]

Classes provide a set of mechanics to build the character you want and ensure an element of balance. They should not define the character. Certain classes, specifically Warlock, and to a lessor extent Cleric and Druid, have thematic issues that actually do connect the class to the character definition, but even there you can do away with those elements relatively easily.

I disagree with this so much. If anything, more classes should be like the warlock, built to suit a certain thematic flavor, and the warlock itself should be built even uniquely suited to its theme, treating the pact as an ongoing mechanical consideration instead of essentially relegating it to backstory. Classes just being names given to a set of interchangeable mechanics makes me think people in favor of that might like a classless system better.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What? Huh? What was that disturbance in the Force?

Did someone say the "A-word"!? Naughty, naughty! Shame, shame, shame!

Serious observation here: one of the biggest drivers of sameyness is only accepting things that you personally like.

And the more you reduce the spell lists the more likely it is that all members of a given class feel samey.

 

[Lanefan]

Classes provide a set of mechanics to build the character you want and ensure an element of balance. They should not define the character. Certain classes, specifically Warlock, and to a lessor extent Cleric and Druid, have thematic issues that actually do connect the class to the character definition, but even there you can do away with those elements relatively easily.

Or go the other way and find thematic issues that can connect each class to the character definition, and in so doing make each class a bit more unique (which is the point of this thread, right?).

Which means you flat can't succeed at some elements in the game or the DM has to build a story without those elements.

The DM should "build the story" without regard for which PCs or classes or species will be going through said story; and if the PCs can't* succeed at some elements then maybe the players need to think outside the box a bit and find some workarounds.

* - "can't" is far too absolute. Better is "less likely to", which means they still can but with greater difficulty.

I have played such campaigns and that is difficult and can be troublesome. Not as troublesome as the infamous DM PC, but certainly a problem at times and with some players.

Advenruting NPCs are DMPCs and they're not a problem in the least IME.

It is better if you add a couple NPCs and let the players control them in combat, but to be honest a 4-person party is the norm in 5E and 3 should be as common or more common than 6 players and to do that well you need to be decent at all three pillars with just 3 players.

A game with 3 Players and 3 PCs is a lot more fun than a game with 3 players and 6 PCs.

I'm used to big parties, but then again I'm not trying to run or play 5e.

That is a solution, but it is not ideal as you still end up with a large party that slows the game down and is as bad as having a bunch of PCs. It is also not as fun when your hired NPC face manages to talk his way past three guard posts to get into the keep and the baron's quarters. It is far more fun when the PC fighter or ranger does it.

If the players wanted to play a face character then someone would play one. If they don't but still find that having one in the party is useful, this can be the self-inflicted result.

That said, there's nothing wrong with allowing one or more players to do the talking on behalf of that "face" NPC, while you-as-DM talk for whoever the face is interacting with.

Also if you are really playing NPCs right there is an element of ambiguity because they are not controlled by players and not part of the social contract between players. Are they really going to stick it through with the party? Is it possible they are spys/infiltrators? Will they run when the going gets tough?

In a realistic party I ought to be asking the same questions of the other PCs as well. PCs are allowed to be spies, or turncoats, or cowards, every bit as much as NPCs are....aren't they?

If the DM is handwaving that and making them essentially rock solid like the PCs then that detracts quite a bit from the story, or worse they essentially become a DM PC.

Of course they become DMPCs. That's what adventuring NPCs are, and they're an accepted fact of life here. That said, as DMs we tend to try and pull them out if-when they look like they're getting too powerful, but on occasions doing so can be difficult because the PCs don't want to let them go; either due to their usefulness or due to their having become an integral part of the party unit.