D&D General What Is D&D Generally Bad At That You Wish It Was Better At?

[pemerton]

I think you are filling in a lot of gaps with your own interpretation of what "protect the kingdom" means. Moreover, combat prowess or power does not necessarily translate to survival skills. You can't hunt a rabbit with a howitzer.

What I am guessing is that you think those mundane aspects of play are boring, or even actively unfun. And so you are translating that to saying what's good.

To me, it seems you've not quite got @Imaro's point.

I think that Imaro is imagining a character like (say) Aragorn, or King Conan, or Ged of Earthsea, who faces (and in the context of D&D play, typically defeats) dangers that threaten cities and kingdoms (like armies of Orcs, or Smaug-like dragons, or the most cunning of evil viziers, etc). And is saying that it makes no real sense (in fiction/genre terms) for that character to struggle with completely mundane matters like getting lost in the woods and needing to find a rabbit to eat.

 

[Celebrim]

You don't see how the type of challenges PV's face are connected?

Edit: i have the personal physical or magical power to protect a city or kingdom... but I'm felled by strong rain or not being able to catch a rabbit to eat? That makes sense to you?

Absolutely.

You could quite easily have the strength and prowess to slay a giant yet be helpless aboard a boat in a hurricane. I don't see how it is strange that a character could be unbeatable in a boxing ring, yet subject to being frozen to death or drowned. I don't think the ability to drive a spear through the heart of your foes necessarily makes you skilled at finding and killing a rabbit that is outside of spear thrust. All the martial skills of a champion might well be useless against malaria. How is this not obvious?

 

[Imaro]

Absolutely.

You could quite easily have the strength and prowess to slay a giant yet be helpless aboard a boat in a hurricane. I don't see how it is strange that a character could be unbeatable in a boxing ring, yet subject to being frozen to death or drowned. I don't think the ability to drive a spear through the heart of your foes necessarily makes you skilled at finding and killing a rabbit that is outside of sphere thrust. All the martial skills of a champion might well be useless against malaria. How is this not obvious?

Is this generally how fantasy genre fiction plays out? You're an archer who can slay dragons but failing to shoot something to eat is how you die? Its absurd. Not to mention there is a profession based around individuals highly trained (some would say solely trained) to deal with this very thing... and let's not forget... magic.

On top of which you're not beginners to adventuring you're beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of the world at 5th level... but basic survival should be challenging at this point?

 

[Voadam]

To me, it seems you've not quite got @Imaro's point.

I think that Imaro is imagining a character like (say) Aragorn, or King Conan, or Ged of Earthsea, who faces (and in the context of D&D play, typically defeats) dangers that threaten cities and kingdoms (like armies of Orcs, or Smaug-like dragons, or the most cunning of evil viziers, etc). And is saying that it makes no real sense (in fiction/genre terms) for that character to struggle with completely mundane matters like getting lost in the woods and needing to find a rabbit to eat.

I would expect Aragorn and Conan to be great at wandering woods and foraging as rangers and barbarians, not to rely upon spells to do so in the way D&D does.

 

[Imaro]

I think you are filling in a lot of gaps with your own interpretation of what "protect the kingdom" means. Moreover, combat prowess or power does not necessarily translate to survival skills. You can't hunt a rabbit with a howitzer.

You're missing the point... you are supposed to be highly skilled adventurers at this point who can face threats and adversities the vast majority of the population can't. And more than likely you have the added benefit of magic to go with the knowledge you've gained from adventuring (or specializing in surviving mundane hazards, via the Ranger class)... But you don't know how to protect yourself from basic mundane hazzards, how to provision, how to spot danger, etc...?? It doesnt make sense.

What I am guessing is that you think those mundane aspects of play are boring, or even actively unfun. And so you are translating that to saying what's good.

No i think they need to move beyond the mundane at this level.

 

[Imaro]

I would expect Aragorn and Conan to be great at wandering woods and foraging as rangers and barbarians, not to rely upon spells to do so in the way D&D does.

Either way it's a non-issue. Mundane environmental hazzards are barely speed bumps for these characters.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I disagree, but my disagreement requires you understanding what a transcript of play is and why it matters and the difference between an outcome and an experience. A transcript is the recording of the actual events that occurred in character in the story - what the characters actually said or did. The nature of the transcript is different between the proclamation, "My character tells a joke." and "I say to the elf, "So, an elf and a dwarf enter a bar..." You'll notice that I have to ellipse that second example because I don't actually know a joke about an elf and a dwarf in the bar, so I can't record it in the transcript. If I could though, that would be very different than, "My character is being funny." The fact that I could roll to find out if my character was funny and prove that was the outcome couldn't create the missing transcript of the joke, so a later reader of the transcript wouldn't have the experience of a funny joke the way they would if there was an actual funny joke. The experience of the funny joke could not be shared or transmitted to anyone else, just the unfunny statement that the characters inside the story found it funny without explanation why they found it funny that a later reader could understand.

See the difference?

Blades is really good at tracking and rewarding outcome, but it's no better at generating transcripts or experience of courtly intrigue than D&D. The fact that you think "downtime actions" is an essential part of role-playing courtly intrigue makes me want to pull my hair out.

The fact that you think you need explicit clocks and reputation score is only slightly less frustrating, because I like clocks and used them as early as the early 1990s and having them codified is a good tool to give to DMs to help their decision making. But they aren't needed to run NPCs. A DM can run an NPC based on description of character and some common sense without a universal mechanic, and the notion of escalation while is useful to codify isn't something you have to codify. So yes, my homebrew WEG Star Wars D6 adventure about the Hunters infiltrating a war zone to recover a stranded rebel intelligence officer had codified escalation in it regarding what steps the Empire would take if they began to suspect the PC's existence, and in the same campaign in a different adventure I had codified escalation from a slaver/crime boss if the PC's became a thorn in his operation, but none of that is essential to creating the transcript or experience of courtly intrigue. The essential elements of transcript and experience of a story of courtly intrigue (and I'm going to emphasize this) do not exist in the metagame.

I'm perfectly aware of everything you are saying, and I mostly disagree with it. I agree that it's possible to play courtly intrigue stuff without rules to support it, but at that point the GM needs to cover for all the things that can go wrong playing something that the system does not inherently support.

 

[payn]

The courtly intrigue discussion often gets lost in the weeds. Some folks assume you either only do it via role play or only do it via dice rolls. There is an in between.

 

[Reynard]

To me, it seems you've not quite got @Imaro's point.

I think that Imaro is imagining a character like (say) Aragorn, or King Conan, or Ged of Earthsea, who faces (and in the context of D&D play, typically defeats) dangers that threaten cities and kingdoms (like armies of Orcs, or Smaug-like dragons, or the most cunning of evil viziers, etc). And is saying that it makes no real sense (in fiction/genre terms) for that character to struggle with completely mundane matters like getting lost in the woods and needing to find a rabbit to eat.

What a strange thing to write, given that both Aragorn and Conan are dealing with the challenges inherent in the mundane elements of their adventures ALL THE TIME.

 

[Reynard]

The courtly intrigue discussion often gets lost in the weeds. Some folks assume you either only do it via role play or only do it via dice rolls. There is an in between.

You don't even need dice rolls at all, but can still have a mechanism that tracks progress and does not rely on GM Fiat.