D&D 5E What are the Roles now?

[Ratskinner]

As for declaring divine intervention all the time - I think this is one of those things where you put expectations on players to be interesting. I knew a guy who always played red-headed "bimbos" as his PC; it got old fast and I stopped playing with him. I think that, when you give players the chance to author content as part of the game, the rest of the group is going to judge the other players on the content they add. Not that this is big news or anything; players do this about DMs all the time, just pointing it out.

I agree with you in general, but this is also a place where different player expectations can come into conflict. There are those players who play with a much more "competitive" vibe along those "Conan" lines. I can definitely see that kind of narrative permission being used as leverage for advantage by such players. Honestly, as much as I like heavy narrative and joint authorship games, I've come to view D&D as a poor chassis for a game focusing on that (mostly from playing other games that do it so much better.) Even if I still sometimes want to try and bang D&D closer to that shape (like with the Sweet20 experience system), I've sort of intellectually conceded that its not where D&D likes to be.

I'm not sure I'm following you here. I took what you wrote to mean that the PC could only claim divine intervention if the PC had a bonus from a spell like Aid or Bless (or some other mechanic that explicitly spelled it out).

Sorry, I was just riffing of your description of your clerical magic. (My next game will actually run along similar veins with Earth's polytheistic gods as just the upper end of a "beings of power" spectrum.)

You did get my intention basically correct otherwise. In a world where clerical magic functions as you describe, he might even attribute those bonuses to a deity and be wrong.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think this is over-simplistic. There's a lot of D&D products and you can find material supporting any view you want in there somewhere. Clerics and other religious spellcasters having spells provides tangible evidence that faith can matter, depending on the surrounding nuance.

You are correct. That is oversimplistic, but I think its where the game started.

Products like "Faiths and Avatars" for 2e provide an alternative view, with signs and portents all around, which makes for a more supernatural world, but some people like that. Fitting this stuff in doesn't need to trample all over the rules or others people's tastes, it can be negotiated to fit in the gaps in the rules and to be acceptable to other players. Like any improvisation, much of it is about going with the flow and avoid contradicting the other participants.

I think you may be underestimating how much player buy-in is required for all of these things. IME, tossing that kind of thing in without warning can lead to a very rough ride for the group. I agree that some people like that, but there are many others who find it annoying, distasteful, or "cheating".

I have seen irreconcilable differences arise on these issues as well, it can be something of a hot topic, so I'm trying to be careful.

I have no doubt. I've seen and been involved in several at-table implosions following divine intervention moments and or arguments over religion in-game vs real-world.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Player authorship can create more competitiveness, and it can be a distraction.

Oh of course. Anything done badly doesn't work. The relevant questions are "How easy is it to do well?" and "What does it do when done well?" (And to me the answer is pretty easy and a lot).

(I mean, I don't really like disassociated mechanics, but clearly I can be tempted by them because in 5E I find the Lucky feat very desirable despite the dissociation. Although I should probably consider eliminating Lucky from my games for precisely that reason: it's mechanically tempting but off-putting from a roleplaying perspective.)

Lucky is worse than just about anything that people who call a disassociated mechanic object to because you can not associate spurts of luck. Most supposedly disassociated mechanics allow the player to choose how things work for them and that is an integral part of character building for people who care.

You mention the Raven Queen a lot. Did you insist on going against what the canon was or was it never developed for D&D?

This is a huge difference between the way 4e's Nentir Vale is written up and the way e.g. the Forgotten Realms is. The Nentir Vale/PoLand is written up as a mythological setting. Everyone knows what the character of the Raven Queen is, and some things she has done. But there aren't books focussing on her the way there are on Mystra as a direct manifestation.

That aside, if you say you experience immersion in poker while playing checkers, or you say you hate checkers but feel immersion in checkers while not doing it, so be it.

I'm sorry but you are not talking about anything I am saying here. I used to experience immersion in chess while playing chess. (I'm far too rusty for that to happen now). It is a well known phenomenon that with sufficient chess what skilled players see changes - grandmasters are literally so in tune with the game that they don't see bad moves. This is flow in action (and there will also be fiero). And it is exactly the same as what happens in an immersive RPG; your experience matches the bounds of the game. The bounds are wider and more interesting in an RPG than chess (and I gave up chess because to move to the next level up I'd need to learn reams of theory, defeating what was to me the fun of the game)

There is an aspect of what makes RPGs fun to me ( and a lot of other people) that you are clearly failing to grasp and you keep substituting other things into the conversation that defeat making any progress.

No. There is an aspect of psychology and the theory of games that you are failing to grasp. And you keep denying this. In the wikipedia entry for flow, the word 'immersed' is right there in the first sentence.

So you take issue when you claim that I have falsely described your experience. Then you describe MY experience and when I say "no, that is not right" you tell me that this is an un-compelling argument.

Straw man.

I am assuming that you have accurately described your experience. If you have inaccurately described it, I apologise. The very words you use and description you use matches up to (a) my experience of immersion in D&D in multiple editions, (b) my experience of immersion in competitive chess, and (c) textbook descriptions of flow, right down to the very choice of words you use including the word "immersion".

There is not one single way in which I reject your description of your experience. Literally the only thing I am rejecting is your ability to put limits on things you have not experienced. I am not rejecting your ability to have your experience. I am rejecting your ability to say "This is the only way you can experience immersion." You can say perfectly well that "This is the only way I personally have experienced immersion and I find this the best way to experience it." What you can not do is say "It is impossible to experience immersion any other way". Because that is not something you have experienced - by definition it is not something you can experience.

You however are rejecting me saying "I have experienced immersion this way and that way".

You are rejecting my experience point blank. I am rejecting your ability to place limits on the experiences of others.

OK.

Like I've said several times now. You can't get anywhere with closed minded presumptions.

Indeed. So open your mind. Stop assuming that the way you have experienced specific emotional states are the only way to experience them.

This is a thread in the 5E board. It has certainly derailed several times over. But there is a constant theme and that is (roughly and in simple terms) "how things in 5E (and other editions) are perceived and enjoyed by people who dislike the 4E analogs of those things". There is a long stream of replies from the pro-4E side that repeatedly insert the 4E versions as not analogs, but as the exact same thing in all manners of perception and experience. And if that were true it would be non-sense for anyone to take exception to them in 4E and yet enjoy them in other editions.

No. This is your misunderstanding of the situation.

4e is no more the exact same thing as 5e as a Turkish Coffee is a mocha. But both are types of coffee. It's not nonsense to like one and dislike the other. It is, however, nonsense to object to a Turkish coffee on the grounds it has coffee in it and still like a mocha. "I don't like it" is fine. "I don't like it because it has coffee in it" is silly. "I don't like it because it tastes too strongly of coffee and I like the mix a mocha provides" would be an interesting position.

Also this is a thread about what the roles are - in other words how things have changed from what many see as a distinguishing feature of 4e because it ground its coffee beans differently.

And the 4E fans seem to take this point and run with it, proclaiming other opinions to be nonsense by this reasoning.

Only ones that reject the presence of coffee in a mocha (or roles in D&D).

And yet the very fact that it happens is proof (at least to any reasonable view of popular opinion and market acceptance) that the logic fails because the founding presumption of equivalence is in error.

Once more I'm continuing with the coffee analogy. Many people who like mochas don't drink Turkish coffee. The fact that this happens is proof of one thing. That people don't drink Turkish coffee routinely. This does not mean that all possible reasons for not liking Turkish coffee are valid - anyone who claims to want no coffee beans near their drink while drinking a mocha is clearly talking out of their hat. Anyone who thinks that Turkish Coffee is too concentrated or who likes the chocolaty flavour of mocha and how it blends with and takes the bitterness off the Turkish Coffee, or who just wants more liquid, is probably telling the truth.

It's not a presumption of equivalence. It's a presumption that some parts are equivalent. And 4e fans (or at least this one) may read threads on other aspects of 5e design - but the objections only start coming out when people start objecting to hot water, ground coffee, caffeine, or any of a number of other things shared in common.

If you want to talk about 4E things purely from a 4E perspective then it seems to me that you should go to a 4E forum. You are welcome to bring your 4E perspective to the 5E forums, but you need to accept that differences in perspective will be quite important to advancing the conversation.

If you think I'm speaking purely from a 4e perspective you haven't been reading this thread. (All my statements about bleed aren't from 4e, and I've brought up Leverage several times).

Lastly: though I still reject your use of the term "flow", I strongly reject your statement regarding what I "cannot find". The point of the conversation is about what provides the greatest fun and maximum satisfaction from the gaming experience.

And if you had been saying that "It is easier for to find immersion without the power to author some of the fiction because self regulating is annoying" then there wouldn't have been this argument. But that's not how you approached it. If you had said something like "I prefer to not do things like the bank example" again there wouldn't have been a problem. The problem is that you are saying that it is impossible to be immersed when you have the power to author fiction. This is simply untrue. You might find it impossible. I find it easier (and the example I've given about the bank illustrates why). If you can be immersed one way but not the other then this is a limit on you. If you can be immersed both ways but have a simple preference for one that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

 

[Rejuvenator]

FWIW, the 5E Basic Rules attributes clerical spellcasting to being a "conduit for divine power" which isn't exactly clear. Only Channel Divinity specifies "the ability to channel divine energy directly from your deity, using that energy to fuel magical effects".

EDIT: "The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic. These spellcasters’ access to the Weave is mediated by divine power—gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath."

 

[Aenghus]

You are correct. That is oversimplistic, but I think its where the game started.

Arguably, but that really doesn't mean it has to stay there. Enough people want shiny heroic games or games with sympathetically realised fantasy religions to permanently muddy the waters I believe.

I think you may be underestimating how much player buy-in is required for all of these things. IME, tossing that kind of thing in without warning can lead to a very rough ride for the group. I agree that some people like that, but there are many others who find it annoying, distasteful, or "cheating".

No, I suspect I come in on the opposite side of this question. My favourite class was "cleric" for a long time but I had to be very careful joining new games as sometimes referees had difficulty not bringing anti-religious agendas into their game, which could make play in their game a misery.

Whether compromise is possible and how easy it is depends on the people concerned - If no-one has strong opinions or non-clashing opinions it's much easier.

 

[Imaro]

I am assuming that you have accurately described your experience. If you have inaccurately described it, I apologise. The very words you use and description you use matches up to (a) my experience of immersion in D&D in multiple editions, (b) my experience of immersion in competitive chess, and (c) textbook descriptions of flow, right down to the very choice of words you use including the word "immersion".

How about (c) your understanding of what he has described is inaccurate or flawed? Could that also be a possibility? How he has used immersion doesn't IMO line up with how the wikipedia article is using it...

 

[BryonD]

No. There is an aspect of psychology and the theory of games that you are failing to grasp. And you keep denying this. In the wikipedia entry for flow, the word 'immersed' is right there in the first sentence.

BS

I grasp the idea. You are forcing it onto my circumstance incorrectly and you can't seem to grasp the distinction.

Straw man.

It is not, it is only a straw man from your perspective because it replaces the distraction you have offered with my actual point.

You are rejecting my experience point blank. I am rejecting your ability to place limits on the experiences of others.

Again, this is total BS
I have responded to emphatic statements from the pro-4E said claiming that the experiences of those who like 5E but don't like 4E are flat out wrong because the experiences are the same. In other words, they are "point blank" rejecting that other are having a different experience as they claim.

I have stated numerous times that I greatly respect the experiences of 4E fans and that I'm willing to accept other terms to better accomodate both sides. But someone (perhaps not you) who actively rejects doing something is not experiencing THAT THING they are rejecting doing. (As an aside, it is certainly possible that 4E fans ARE experiencing, but can not bring themselves to admit in a public forum that there is a legitimate basis for disliking 4E).

And if you had been saying that "It is easier for to find immersion without the power to author some of the fiction because self regulating is annoying" then there wouldn't have been this argument. But that's not how you approached it. If you had said something like "I prefer to not do things like the bank example" again there wouldn't have been a problem. The problem is that you are saying that it is impossible to be immersed when you have the power to author fiction. This is simply untrue. You might find it impossible. I find it easier (and the example I've given about the bank illustrates why). If you can be immersed one way but not the other then this is a limit on you. If you can be immersed both ways but have a simple preference for one that's a different kettle of fish entirely.

But that isn't the point.

You seem to be hung up on your insertions into argument. I'm responding to claims of other on your side of the conversation and you can't start taking my replies out of that context and you can't assume that your placing yourself into a response I've made to someone else doesn't carry the implication of the statements from the other person which are are defending.

Again, in summary, call it whatever you want. There is a major difference between which is significant to perception. Our inability to mutually agree to a label does not change that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

BS

I grasp the idea. You are forcing it onto my circumstance incorrectly and you can't seem to grasp the distinction.

Because you have not made one single thing showing how it is different. And you are rejecting my experiences out of hand. You are describing a flow like state using words people would use to describe flow in a situation people would expect to find flow and nothing at all saying it is different.

It is not, it is only a straw man from your perspective because it replaces the distraction you have offered with my actual point.

Your actual point appears to be a straw man.

Again, this is total BS
I have responded to emphatic statements from the pro-4E said claiming that the experiences of those who like 5E but don't like 4E are flat out wrong because the experiences are the same. In other words, they are "point blank" rejecting that other are having a different experience as they claim.

[Citation Needed]

The experiences are clearly in detail different because there are different rules. And I personally on this thread have mentioned ways they are different.

But. There's a difference between "different" and "fundamentally different". If we take a British driver in a British car and drop them onto the roads in America they are going to struggle badly at first. You drive on the wrong side of the road. Your sign markings are different. Therefore the experience driving in America is different from the one driving in Britain. The question is whether they are fundamentally different, whether the differences are a matter of acclimitisation, or whether it's a mixture of the two (for instance sticking a British motorcyclist in an American car in America).

I have stated numerous times that I greatly respect the experiences of 4E fans and that I'm willing to accept other terms to better accomodate both sides. But someone (perhaps not you) who actively rejects doing something is not experiencing THAT THING they are rejecting doing. (As an aside, it is certainly possible that 4E fans ARE experiencing, but can not bring themselves to admit in a public forum that there is a legitimate basis for disliking 4E).

There is legitimate basis for disliking 4e. Most 4e fans will admit so in a public forum. Anyone who thinks that 4e combat is on the snappy side is ... weird. Anyone who thinks that 4e is a great dungeon crawling game needs to look at BECMI or Torchbearer (4e is a terrible dungeon crawler). In short your insinuation that 4e fans claim there is no legitimate basis for disliking 4e is at best representative of a tiny faction of 4e fans (are there any in this thread?)

This does not mean that all reasons for disliking 4e are valid. Hence my Turkish Coffee analogy earlier. If you claim to like a mocha and not a Turkish Coffee because of the mocha's added chocolate that's a sensible reason. If you claim to not like Turkish Coffee because it's made with coffee beans while you are drinking a mocha that's simply wrong. Something else must be the issue.

Do you claim that all reasons people state for disliking 4e are automatically legitimate? Or should we look at them and see if they are accurate? And who exactly are you claiming says there are no reasons for disliking 4e?

You talk the talk about saying that 4e is a great game at what it does - but I'm curious as to what you actually think it does and doesn't do?

You seem to be hung up on your insertions into argument. I'm responding to claims of other on your side of the conversation and you can't start taking my replies out of that context and you can't assume that your placing yourself into a response I've made to someone else doesn't carry the implication of the statements from the other person which are are defending.

Except that I was quoting your reply to me. So your claim that it wasn't is rather redundant.

Again, in summary, call it whatever you want. There is a major difference between which is significant to perception. Our inability to mutually agree to a label does not change that.

There is a massive difference to our approach. I work on the basis that working out where else we see things is useful.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Lucky is worse than just about anything that people who call a disassociated mechanic object to because you can not associate spurts of luck. Most supposedly disassociated mechanics allow the player to choose how things work for them and that is an integral part of character building for people who care.

You could re-associate Luck the same way as anything else by saying that "whenever my PC uses his Luck, he's actually thinking of his lucky number, 7777777, as hard as he can." I think that would be bogus, but then, I think that of most attempts to re-associate mechanics. YMMV clearly.

 

[pemerton]

You mention the Raven Queen a lot. Did you insist on going against what the canon was or was it never developed for D&D?

The reason I mention the Raven Queen is because she has been the most prominent deity in my 4e campaign - of 5 PCs, one is a paladin of the Raven Queen, one a cleric (hybrid ranger) of the Raven Queen, and one an invoker-wizard who serves the Raven Queen, Erathis, Bane, Ioun, Pelor, Vecna, Levistus and probably one or two other gods I'm forgetting.

The other two PCs are a fighter-cleric of Moradin, and a drow sorcerer-bard who is part of a secret society that worships Corellon and tries to overthrow Lolth and undo the sundering of the elves.

I won't bore you with the details, but through various chains of events, over the course of the campaign the PCs have (i) promised to help Kas (an ally of the Raven Queen) against Vecna (an enemy of the Raven Queen), (ii) have killed Torog, the god of the underdark, an destroyed his Soul Abattoir, meaning that the souls of those who die in the underdark now flow to the Raven Queen, (iii) have defeated the Prince of Frost and made vassals of the frost giants on the Feywild, meaning that the Raven Queen now controls winter on the Feywild as well as on the mortal world, (iv) have freed the Raven Queen from her obedience to beings of the Far Realm (with whom she entered into a pact to conceal her true name) by killing the entity who was making a profit out of it (he was given oversight of the bridge which may be traversed but once, where souls leave the Shadowfell and travel who-knows-where) and then killing the messengers sent by the stars to spread the news of the Raven Queen's name.

So it turns out that the story of the campaign, a little unexpectedly, is of the rise and rise of the Raven Queen.

My game mostly uses the backstory of the 4e world as written in the books - and this reveals the Raven Queen to be an ambitious person, who started as a dead soul but then (i) overthrew the former god of death to take his portfolio, (ii) helped Corellon fight Lolth so that she was able to take the portfolio of fate from the latter, and then (iii) helped the other gods fight the former goddess of winter so that she was able to take that portfolio. The same backstory also establishes that she is an enemy of Vecna and Orcus and has some sort of alliance with Kas, and that she has somehow contrived to hide her true name.

So I wouldn't describe my game as having departed from canon. I think it has drawn upon canon to inform play.