Dragonlance "You walk down the road, party is now level 2."

[TwoSix]

Nah, I'm good. I'm not getting out of 5e for you.

Ultimately, PC exceptionalism might be the default for 5e, but it's certainly not a requirement. All that's really required to not have it is DM-facing worldbuilding assumptions (as has been explored in some other recent threads).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nah, I'm good. I'm not getting out of 5e for you.

I’m suggesting it for your benefit, not mine. You are constantly complaining about D&D because it is built around a core concept that does not suit your preferred gameplay. There exists many games that are not built around that core concept. Surely the solution is obvious?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Ultimately, PC exceptionalism might be the default for 5e, but it's certainly not a requirement. All that's really required to not have it is DM-facing worldbuilding assumptions (as has been explored in some other recent threads).

That doesn't make sense to me, surely in the main D&D is DM-face worldbuilding? I don't think that has anything to do with playing a game that has or doesn't have PC exceptionalism.

 

[TwoSix]

That doesn't make sense to me, surely in the main D&D is DM-face worldbuilding? I don't think that has anything to do with playing a game that has or doesn't have PC exceptionalism.

I mean that the only changes you need to make to enable PC non-exceptionalism (mundanity?) are changes at the world-building level; no mechanical levers impact PC building rules need to be used.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, which is sort of what I mean by "meaningful". It's when you have encounters that feel like a chore - and I've definitely seen them in my years of the game - that things go south.

Within the story structure of an adventure path series, the requirement to give out "this much XP" can lead to additional encounters that are just there for the XP. The players and DM are very ready to get onto the next story point, but if they need enough XP first and so have to just grind for it, the focus and intensity is lost.

The amount of time you spend in each level is tremendously varied depending on group and story dynamics. (While I could craft a D&D 5E campaign that was 30 sessions long and the players never gain a level, I think my group would rebel at that!)

For the purpose of brand new players to the game, I'd like their experiences as levels 1 & 2 to be extensive enough so that they gain a handle on how to play the game. But not so long that they don't feel like they're not progressing!

Cheers!

Have you considered that this is a short sighted gm problem if the gm can not weave other flavors of advancement into those early levels to keep the game enjoyable as many of us have already attested to or implied doing as a gm? What sort of problems are you having as a gm that prevents you from doing similar without needing rapid fire leveling to speed away from the gaps before players can notice them?

 

[pemerton]

I mean that the only changes you need to make to enable PC non-exceptionalism (mundanity?) are changes at the world-building level; no mechanical levers impact PC building rules need to be used.

Although if the PC build rules are left alone, and are generalised to also serve as world building rules for the GM, the resulting world is likely to be a silly one (eg every second-story burglar is now, for no clear reason, also an accomplished assassin!).

There are RPGs whose PC build rules are also reasonably (not always perfectly) well-suited to serve as world-building rules (RM and RQ are the classics; Classic Traveller can also handle a fair bit of this; Prince Valiant and Burning Wheel, while departing from "simulationism" to various degrees in action resolution, have PC build rules that are also quite workable for building NPCs).

But - particularly because of the way that combat ability is inherent to D&D classes, in a niche-protection-ish way - I don't think D&D's PC build rules are very suitable to be used in this fashion.

If one is a cleric then they're not a priest or puissant miracle worker.
They are a cleric as defined by the game with specific powers or access to powers etc.

<snip>

if within the game it's established this is how class y works, then you'd imagine all class y individuals to follow the same design principles.

This seems close to tautology - the question becomes, then, are there any/many other clerics?

Perhaps this is the premise I'm not accepting, that PCs are automatically prodigies in EVERY D&D setting, as if specifically selected by the gods for greatness and thus suffer PHB design as opposed to everyone else within the setting.

Imagine there were these characters walking around that were just miles better than anyone else - wouldn't that draw attention from others within that setting? And you're suggesting that is/be the premise for every D&D setting.

Well, I think it is a premise of the D&D game that PCs are distinctive from most of the rest of their world, in that they are (i) powerful (or, at least, potentially very powerful) and (ii) violently capable and (iii) ready and willing to tackle dangerous situations.

The PC build rules ensure (i) and (ii); and (iii) follows from the way the game presents the GM and player roles (ie the players play their PCs through adventures presented by the GM; the GM uses the Monster Manual to build encounters; etc).

Whether the PCs are prodigies or not is probably a further, more discretionary matter - maybe they're just lucky, or tenacious, or something else. There are a range of possible reasons that (i) might be true.

Sure, there are plenty gamist principles baked into D&D but
If you're not following those principles for all class y individuals then I'd view the distinction being gamist.
The same way the minion is a gamist creation.
How would you define it?

"Minion" is a metagame label - like PC or NPC - but it's not an in-fiction thing.

And to be a minion is to be statted a certain way. But I don't see how statting a creature / NPC as a minion is "gamist" in a way that statting a creature in some other fashion is not. These different ways of statting a creature only affect how it interacts with the combat resolution rules (AC and to hit; hp depletion; roll needed to hit; etc), but don't bear upon the fiction. It's not like an Ogre (say) really has 100 hp rather than 1 hp, or really has AC 20 rather than AC 25, or whatever.

 

[AnotherGuy]

This seems close to tautology - the question becomes, then, are there any/many other clerics?

Well the D&D design principle is that deities have followers, and some of those followers are clerics. The abilities of clerics are prescribed either via the PHB or supplements such as setting books or expansions.

Well, I think it is a premise of the D&D game that PCs are distinctive from most of the rest of their world, in that they are (i) powerful (or, at least, potentially very powerful) and (ii) violently capable and (iii) ready and willing to tackle dangerous situations.

The PC build rules ensure (i) and (ii); and (iii) follows from the way the game presents the GM and player roles (ie the players play their PCs through adventures presented by the GM; the GM uses the Monster Manual to build encounters; etc).

Agree!

Whether the PCs are prodigies or not is probably a further, more discretionary matter - maybe they're just lucky, or tenacious, or something else. There are a range of possible reasons that (i) might be true.

Sure there could be a range of possibilities but lucky or tenacious doesn't cut it logically why a PC can raise dead or resurrect and why NPCs cannot, especially since they can do it EVERY time, sometimes more than once a day or after every long rest, as long as they meet the requirements. That is not tenacious or lucky.
That is that something else.

That's why I said it upthread or in another thread (forget where) that my world has a built in level caps for mortals and to progress beyond that point something supernatural would have needed to occur for the PC to break that built-in natural level cap.
Being a prodigy for a deity is but one way to exceed the level cap.

We try (as best we can with as little work as possible) make sense of the world via the mechanics of the game. Sometimes though we are forced to homebrew.

"Minion" is a metagame label - like PC or NPC - but it's not an in-fiction thing.

And to be a minion is to be statted a certain way. But I don't see how statting a creature / NPC as a minion is "gamist" in a way that statting a creature in some other fashion is not. These different ways of statting a creature only affect how it interacts with the combat resolution rules (AC and to hit; hp depletion; roll needed to hit; etc), but don't bear upon the fiction. It's not like an Ogre (say) really has 100 hp rather than 1 hp, or really has AC 20 rather than AC 25, or whatever.

That is an interest perspective, and it is not wrong but it is not the perspective which our table uses.

A young ogre would have less HD than the official HD of an assumed adult ogre as represented in the MM and that is because they would be perhaps of smaller size and have less experience in combat...etc
The age category of the ogre would determine the change that would be necessary i.e. baby/toddler, young child, teenager etc. Similar to how dragon ages were used to change their stats in the 2e Monstrous Manual or how age categories affected HD in Orcs of Thar.

In the same way an ogre who is an experienced fighter or barbarian would have more HD than that as reflected in the MM and we would look at the base and add/modify the necessary abilities/stats as per the PHB depending on their level.
They already did this to some degree in 4e and 5e (cannot remember 3e, but 3e's rules were properly codified for advancements, feats and all).

Hence I view a minion as purely gamist because it doesn't follow the above design principles but rather does what you described in your post statted only for the purposes of how they interact with the combat resolution rules.

I think our discusson is very much a conflict of perspectives.

A high level PC has +6 on their proficiency bonus which means if they were proficient in carpentry when they were level 1 then at high level they automatically become masters of the craft without realising this through the fiction at the table.
Duration of focused downtime activity play no bearing on one's proficiency bonus.
This is nonsensical to us. It is these kinds of simulated mechanics (and what we have discussed) which I'm desiring.

 

[pemerton]

In the same way an ogre who is an experienced fighter or barbarian would have more HD than that as reflected in the MM and we would look at the base and add/modify the necessary abilities/stats as per the PHB depending on their level.
They already did this to some degree in 4e and 5e (cannot remember 3e, but 3e's rules were properly codified for advancements, feats and all).

Hence I view a minion as purely gamist because it doesn't follow the above design principles but rather does what you described in your post statted only for the purposes of how they interact with the combat resolution rules.

I think our discusson is very much a conflict of perspectives.

A high level PC has +6 on their proficiency bonus which means if they were proficient in carpentry when they were level 1 then at high level they automatically become masters of the craft without realising this through the fiction at the table.
Duration of focused downtime activity play no bearing on one's proficiency bonus.
This is nonsensical to us.

To me these two things - Ogres, and carpentry - seem quite different.

Hit dice are not a part of the fiction. They're a game mechanic for assigning hit points and attack bonuses. All that there is, in the fiction, is ability to endure in a fight and ability to hurt others in a fight. You can step up the AC and step down the hit points, and preserve the ability to endure in a fight. You can step up the attack bonus and step down the damage dice, and preserve the ability to hurt others in a fight. No particular way of doing this is truer of, or less true of, the fiction.

A parallel would be resolving a fight in D&D via some single opposed check. It might be tricky to work out a fair way of doing this. But it would not be "more gamist" than the standard resolution system - there is nothing more "realistic" about dividing time into 6 second intervals and doing hit point ablation over those intervals, than resolving it all at once.

On the other hand, the fact that someone becomes a master of a craft is a state of affairs in the fiction. If that happens although the person never practises the craft, then that is a bit weird. The fact that D&D's PC build rules can produce this outcome is another reason why I don't regard them as a general framework for world-building. Maybe for some reason this exceptional person - the PC - is a master despite having barely practised. But NPC master carpenters will have attained that state by dint of practice - which is something the PC build rules don't model or reflect.

It is these kinds of simulated mechanics (and what we have discussed) which I'm desiring.

I tried to drift AD&D in this direction in the latter part of the 1980s. It was fairly hard work and the success was mixed at best. After playing one session of Rolemaster at my university RPG club, I went out and bought the rules, learned them, and then started GMing RM. I GMed a weekly RM game for 9 to 10 years, which then became fortnightly for another 9 to 10 years (19 years in total; two different campaigns, one about 8 years and the other about 11 years).

I don't see D&D as satisfying simulationist demands.

EDIT: @AnotherGuy - just to let you know I edited my post after you reacted., to add some more thoughts prompted by your post.

 

[Lanefan]

"Minion" is a metagame label - like PC or NPC - but it's not an in-fiction thing.

Which is exactly the problem I have with minions as a thing.

And to be a minion is to be statted a certain way. But I don't see how statting a creature / NPC as a minion is "gamist" in a way that statting a creature in some other fashion is not. These different ways of statting a creature only affect how it interacts with the combat resolution rules (AC and to hit; hp depletion; roll needed to hit; etc), but don't bear upon the fiction. It's not like an Ogre (say) really has 100 hp rather than 1 hp, or really has AC 20 rather than AC 25, or whatever.

A monster's stats should reflect the fiction of what that monster is, without consideration for who or what happens to be fighting it at the time.

If one looks at monster AC and hit points as relative measures against other monsters, it snaps much closer into alignment with the fiction. An Ogre has 75 hit points to indicate in abstract that, in the fiction, it is much more resilient than a 7-hit-point Goblin; and it has AC 20 to indicate - again in abstract - that its hide-plus-thick-fur-robes are much harder to get through than the thin skin-plus-leather-jerkin of the AC-12 Goblin. Further, the Ogre has 75 hit points and the Goblin has 7 regardless whether each is fighting a common farmer or a demigod at the time.

Changing a monsters' stats to suit what it's fighting (as 4e did it) defeats the whole purpose of having the stats reflect the actual fiction in relative and constant terms. It works fine for pure gamism, perhaps, but that's not everyone's goal.

 

[pemerton]

A monster's stats should reflect the fiction of what that monster is, without consideration for who or what happens to be fighting it at the time.

We've had this discussion a million times. This is a game-design question.

It is very hard to design a game in which stats are infinitely scalable. D&D used to recognise this by having separate wargame rules for when numbers are scaled up (Chainmail; Swords and Spells; War Machine; Battle System). 4e D&D recognised it by stating, in the DMG, that the rules only work for small-ish groups in skirmishes, and also by having rules for swarms. I don't know about 5e in this respect, but here's just one example - the 5e initiative and movement rules don't work very well for a phalanx advancing in formation.

Rules for minions live in the same design space.

If one looks at monster AC and hit points as relative measures against other monsters, it snaps much closer into alignment with the fiction. An Ogre has 75 hit points to indicate in abstract that, in the fiction, it is much more resilient than a 7-hit-point Goblin; and it has AC 20 to indicate - again in abstract - that its hide-plus-thick-fur-robes are much harder to get through than the thin skin-plus-leather-jerkin of the AC-12 Goblin. Further, the Ogre has 75 hit points and the Goblin has 7 regardless whether each is fighting a common farmer or a demigod at the time.

Changing a monsters' stats to suit what it's fighting (as 4e did it) defeats the whole purpose of having the stats reflect the actual fiction in relative and constant terms. It works fine for pure gamism, perhaps, but that's not everyone's goal.

In 4e D&D, the "toughness" that you are talking about is indicated by the level of a creature together with its role as minion, standard, elite or solo. Taken together, these two factors dictate an XP value, and the XP value represents the in-fiction toughness. The more detailed elements - eg AC-ish stuff - is represented by the stats relative to the level.

The representation system is more complicated than the one in AD&D. That does not make it "pure gamism".