Tashas is Disappointing in a way i don't see people talking about

[Amdy_vill]

So I see people talking about how the new class options are bad and to nerfed and I see some people talking about how the new race stuff seems bad but I don't see people talking about how the rest of the book seems underbaked.

so tashas adds the following: new subclasses, new class options, new race changes, group patrons, new magic items/spells, sidekicks, parlaying with the monster, environmental hazards, and puzzles.

I think that outside of sidekicks everything else in the book is underbaked. I am not going to talk about the new subclasses but I will talk about the rest.

the new class options are just not enough. the system was advertised as a way to customize your class. but it is mostly about replacing class features that are bad or adding new class features/ expanding old ones. and to be honest this just doesn't help. most of the replacement options are just more powerful, which is welcome but removes any choice. I feel their new features would be better if every replacement got 2 options of equal, power. one witch follows the theme of upscaling and correcting the old feature and another that is a true alt choice.

the Race changes are weird. I like the Respect part. although I feel there should have been rules for armor proficiencies, I know it only affects one race but that race has been directly buffing because of these new rules. if armor proficiencies up to medium were on the table it would bring dwarves down and in line with some of the other races. it wouldn't fix everything but it would help.

the second part of the race changes is the Custom Lineage. it was hyped up as a way to make interesting new races and heavily customizing your race, but it was just a buffed V human. I feel this could have worked if there was a set of special feats meant for this system or something like that. a way to truly create a new race or special descendant of a race. to be honest, I would have preferred a system like pathfinders 1e but simpler. once again a feature was promised to do one thing and didn't really do that.

Group patrons, this feels like a repeat of the piety system/renown system. It's great but should have instructions for inexperienced DMs. their system is great until you need to create a patron not listed and have to reverse engineer the rules used to make them. I feel when Wtoc adds a system like this it should be accompanied by some extensive discussion of the design policy/rules for creation to help newer DMS.

Spells. they're just so few non-reprints and the few non-reprints are mostly summoning, don't get me wrong summoning needs more spells and an all-around rework but out of the 21 spells 5 are reprints, and 10 are summoning spells. other areas need attention, and we can see that they know this as the rest of the new spell cover other areas then need more spells, and then there is the part where most of the summoning spells could have been cut and merged into a few.

Customizing spells, this looked like it would be a discussion on things like burning hands and frost fingers, but instead, it was just a blip about flavoring a spell's appearance. I would have loved it if it explained upon the ideas set in the DMG about customizing spells but instead, it is a restating of the "Let players describe their spells how they want" from the same section of the DMG.

Magic items, kinda the opposite of spells. I think tattoos got it good. there are enough of them to satisfy most people but the rest of the Magic items are a bit odd. each of them feels like they're part of a set/group like the tattoos but don't have compliments.

Sidekick, great I feel like they nailed it. but this is mostly because they have been working on this idea for a while and have had 3 major versions now. sidekicks are good because they spent a lot of time getting playtested and iterated on.

Parleying with Monsters, wonderful interesting but just doesn't have enough space. this should have been a chapter or a 6-10 page spread. It should have interactions with social encounter rules and expanded them, not just use these rules, and here are some examples. It's a great idea but that's it. it's the literary equivalent of writing Hero and then 20 examples.

Environmental Hazards I just wish this was most structured. for places like the far realm and fey wilds, this makes sense but for hunted houses, Blessed Radiance, and most of the rest they need more structure. there are some rules in the dmg for other Planes and I wish the rules had something like that for these more structured locations. here is 1 or 2 always-on things and then the tables and special rules. I also wish these rules dived into creating your own special environments and balancing them.

Puzzles, this is what many of the other systems needed. it's well developed and great but I feel it gameifys puzzles a little too much. but this type of development is what most of the other systems needed.

I think almost everything in this book should have been worked on longer.

[KorvinStarmast]

Spells. they're just so few non-reprints and the few non-reprints are mostly summoning, don't get me wrong summoning needs more spells and an all-around rework but out of the 21 spells 5 are reprints, and 10 are summoning spells. other areas need attention, and we can see that they know this as the rest of the new spell cover other areas then need more spells, and then there is the part where most of the summoning spells could have been cut and merged into a few.
We didn't need any new spells, heck, the immense pile of spells is already unwieldy. But we got some anyway, and what is wrong with a different take on summoning? Nothing. Of all of the added spells (besides the reprints form SCAG and the adventure on the ice, the summoning ones (being customizable) are a nice addition in terms of having another option for a summons.

[Amdy_vill]

We didn't need any new spells, heck, the immense pile of spells is already unwieldy. But we got some anyway, and what is wrong with a different take on summoning? Nothing. Of all of the added spells (besides the reprints form SCAG and the adventure on the ice, the summoning ones (being customizable) are a nice addition in terms of having another option for a summons.

I love the new take on summoning my problem and the unwieldy pile of spells is because of things like this. the problem is that a lot of classes need certain spells to use their class features and some of these spells just don't exist. some types of magic get over supported to the point that they blout the spell count in the game were others like acid cold and summoning lack support. I think summonings new support is great but we should have only gotten 5 new spells because half of the new summoning spells are just the same spell with different paint. they could have all been compressed into one balanced spell.

this is a great topic that I would love to talk more about. I generally think Wotc Needs to give love to a lot of spell groups and just that they mishandle this one. what they made works but could easily have been less and opened up room for other needed support without compromising the support they gave.

[Luccan]

I'm pretty sure the group patron is a reprint if what was in the Eberron book. At least that's what it was billed as.

The customized race option is pretty dull, but I don't think I'd mind it if a player felt they really needed it to make the character they we're aiming for. Honestly, though, I think its pushed me towards the camp of changing up V.uman a bit to keep it interesting and then just letting everyone get a feat at first level.

[Amdy_vill]

I'm pretty sure the group patron is a reprint if what was in the Eberron book. At least that's what it was billed as.

The customized race option is pretty dull, but I don't think I'd mind it if a player felt they really needed it to make the character they we're aiming for. Honestly, though, I think its pushed me towards the camp of changing up V.uman a bit to keep it interesting and then just letting everyone get a feat at first level.

I just check about group patrons and your right but I still feel my points stand. if you are going to reprint something to bring it into more tables it should be better explained. I think group patrons work in Eberron because from the looks of it all setting unique patrons seem to be covered.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I just check about group patrons and your right but I still feel my points stand. if you are going to reprint something to bring it into more tables it should be better explained. I think group patrons work in Eberron because from the looks of it all setting unique patrons seem to be covered.

I think it's explained well enough. In fact, the system we designed prior to either of these books print for our Adventurer's Guild bonuses in Dungeon of the Mad Mage is a nearly exact match to the Guild Patron.

For new players and DM's, simply using a template is going to be an easy and quick solution. For those edge cases you mention, you're likely already becoming or are an experienced player and adjusting the rules should be something you're familiar with now.

For 5e, rules don't need to be introduced with a huge amount of detail so long as they're functional and have room for tuning. That's kind of how the system is designed.

[Amdy_vill]

In fact, the system we designed prior to either of these books print for our Adventurer's Guild bonuses in Dungeon of the Mad Mage is a nearly exact match to the Guild Patron.

you say we, what is that about.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

I am actually happy to have compendium-style books reprint mechanical elements to keep them all in one place. Also, though I realize this is not a concern for everyone, the more options that are consolidated into one book the easier it is to use those options in Adventurer's League games. (Not that we really get to play in those any more.)

[Pex]

The Cantrips being reprinted give them a sense of being official since they were originally printed in a campaign world sourcebook. It's the same reason Artificer was printed so that it's not only for Eberron. They didn't have to, but some DMs need authenticity. The Tasha book has more clout as an official expansion than Sword Coast Adventure Guide which is "only" for Forgottten Realms. It was done before where spells from Princes of Apocalypse module book were reprinted in Xanathar.

The Summon spells are a useful necessity. Some players are really bothered by the Conjure spells. Some don't like multiple creatures appearing lengthening combat time. Some insist the DM chooses what comes and players don't like loss of control of their own spell or the DM doesn't give them what they want. Some don't like particular creatures that are accessible to be conjured even accepting players control what is conjured. The Summon spells are a compromise. It's one known creature for the spell, does its job, and the player can choose an ability appropriate to the situation. A problem with them is for Shepherd Druid which has a class ability based on HD of what he conjures. The Summon Spell creatures don't have HD, so you either have to house rule a fix or Shepherd Druid continues to cast his Conjure Spells.

The above is not to mean the Summon spells are or should be a replacement for the Conjure spells. Those still exist and gaming groups may continue to use them as they see fit.

[Amdy_vill]

I am actually happy to have compendium-style books reprint mechanical elements to keep them all in one place. Also, though I realize this is not a concern for everyone, the more options that are consolidated into one book the easier it is to use those options in Adventurer's League games. (Not that we really get to play in those any more.)

I like the consolidation of rules I just feel these rules were underbaked. I wish they reprinted piety in this book as while with some Forgotten realms examples.

[Amdy_vill]

The Cantrips being reprinted give them a sense of being official since they were originally printed in a campaign world sourcebook. It's the same reason Artificer was printed so that it's not only for Eberron. They didn't have to, but some DMs need authenticity. The Tasha book has more clout as an official expansion than Sword Coast Adventure Guide which is "only" for Forgottten Realms. It was done before where spells from Princes of Apocalypse module book were reprinted in Xanathar.

The Summon spells are a useful necessity. Some players are really bothered by the Conjure spells. Some don't like multiple creatures appearing lengthing combat time. Some insist the DM chooses what comes and players don't like loss of control of their own spell or the DM doesn't give them what they want. Some don't like particular creatures that are accessible to be conjured even accepting players control what is conjured. The Summon spells are a compromise. It's one known creature for the spell, does its job, and the player can choose an ability appropriate to the situation. A problem with them is for Shepherd Druid which has a class ability based on HD of what he conjures. The Summon Spell creatures don't have HD, so you either have to house rule a fix or Shepherd Druid continues to cast his Conjure Spells.

The above is not to mean the Summon spells are or should be a replacement for the Conjure spells. Those still exist and gaming groups may continue to use them as they see fit.

I agree with all of this but I feel that all the summon x spirit spells could have just been compressed into 2 a 3rd level and 4th level with all the same features but just more options. what do you think of that?

[stoutstien]

Surprised on the lack of chatter on Tasha's mind whip. It's a beast for a 2nd level slot and the Debuff on a weaker save is worth it even disregarding the damage.

[Bilbron]

We didn't need any new spells, heck, the immense pile of spells is already unwieldy. But we got some anyway, and what is wrong with a different take on summoning? Nothing. Of all of the added spells (besides the reprints form SCAG and the adventure on the ice, the summoning ones (being customizable) are a nice addition in terms of having another option for a summons.

I like more spells. An unweildy list to select from is how a game gives good players the opportunity to have better PCs than bad players. A small list of nothing but good spells/options forces bad players into good choices. A game that forces everyone to be good is like a school exercise with no winners and participation trophies all around... a great safe space, but no fun for anyone.

[Amdy_vill]

Surprised on the lack of chatter on Tasha's mind whip. It's a beast for a 2nd level slot and the Debuff on a weaker save is worth it even disregarding the damage.

you are right I should have talked about the other spells more. I feel the rest of the new spells are good but fall into the needs more support like acid damage. great ideas but we need more spells like them and should have gotten more spells like them.

[Waazraath]

We didn't need any new spells, heck, the immense pile of spells is already unwieldy. But we got some anyway, and what is wrong with a different take on summoning? Nothing. Of all of the added spells (besides the reprints form SCAG and the adventure on the ice, the summoning ones (being customizable) are a nice addition in terms of having another option for a summons.

This. There are so many spells already. If WotC wants to offer more players options, it should look at alternative totem options, alternative battlemaster maneuvers, alternative 4e-monk features, alternative invocations, alternative pact boons, alternative fighting styles, and alternative class features that replace current features. I think tasha does quite a lot of those - dunno how good since Europe doesn't get tasha's till december, but personally I'd prefer any new options above the one that already has the highest quantity.

[Amdy_vill]

I like more spells. An unweildy list to select from is how a game gives good players the opportunity to have better PCs than bad players. A small list of nothing but good spells/options forces bad players into good choices. A game that forces everyone to be good is like a school exercise with no winners and participation trophies all around... a great safe space, but no fun for anyone.

I understand where you are coming from but I feel the unwieldy amount of spells actively prevents good choices. think about this. picking the best fire spell is easy, but there are so many fire spells that are not only bad but horrible. now look at acid. there are some clear choices for good spells but there are so few you predy much have to take all of them if you are an acid focused character. this is what I think many people mean by unwieldy. there are some spell types so over-represented they actively remove choice. then there are spells groups that lack any support.

[Amdy_vill]

This. There are so many spells already. If WotC wants to offer more players options, it should look at alternative totem options, alternative battlemaster maneuvers, alternative 4e-monk features, alternative invocations, alternative pact boons, alternative fighting styles, and alternative class features that replace current features. I think tasha does quite a lot of those - dunno how good since Europe doesn't get tasha's till december, but personally I'd prefer any new options above the one that already has the highest quantity.

I agree kinda, yes I think WotC should focus on alts like that but there are some spell types so underrepresented that they need new spells. personly the alt feature system is bad. it should have had 2 or 3 more revisions before getting to a book. real choices instead of direct buff. I would be fine with direct buff so long as there are other options with the same power.

[ProsecutorGodot]

you say we, what is that about.

My group? We wanted to turn the tavern into an adventurer's guild and worked a system out with our DM. Lines up nearly 1 to 1 with this system and we made it almost 2 years ago now.

EDIT: To make my point clear, this is more than enough information if what amounts the same thing has been serving my group for near 2 years. It's more in slightly more in depth than what we came up with while being equally understandable. At that point we were newish to DND, I think it's fine.

[Amdy_vill]

My group? We wanted to turn the tavern into an adventurer's guild and worked a system out with our DM. Lines up nearly 1 to 1 with this system and we made it almost 2 years ago now.

the way you were talking made It seem like you were a developer and you were referencing the faction system.

[Luccan]

I like more spells. An unweildy list to select from is how a game gives good players the opportunity to have better PCs than bad players. A small list of nothing but good spells/options forces bad players into good choices. A game that forces everyone to be good is like a school exercise with no winners and participation trophies all around... a great safe space, but no fun for anyone.

Not sure I agree with the "it is not enough for me to succeed; others must fail" mentality being applied to a cooperative game. The biggest flaw of 3.X was Ivory Tower game design, which ended up bloating the game with a fair amount of crap. Imagine how much better it could've been if they weren't actively trying to make the game worse for some people. I'm in favor of more spells (and maneuvers and feats and so on) for providing a greater number of options, but they absolutely should not put stuff in the game to potentially make certain players play worse. And if not for those players' sake then for the sake of their groups.

[MrStabby]

I really dont get why they dont do more spells and feats.

They can add more life to so many different character options. To be honest, a wizard, even one of a different school, tends to feel pretty identical to another if they have the same spells. A wizard, even one of the same school, tends to feel pretty different to another if they have different spells.

Per column inch, I think spells and feats add a lot more life to the game than new classes, subclasses and especially races.

[Amdy_vill]

I really dont get why they dont do more spells and feats.

They can add more life to so many different character options. To be honest, a wizard, even one of a different school, tends to feel pretty identical to another if they have the same spells. A wizard, even one of the same school, tends to feel pretty different to another if they have different spells.

Per column inch, I think spells and feats add a lot more life to the game than new classes, subclasses and especially races.

I agree. feats don't get love because they're "optional" despite even official play using it and I have no clue why spell doesn't get love. I think a focus on inner class option would be better. totem and maneuvers. but not all classes have them so there's that problem.

[Amnestic]

It does seem a little odd that Tasha's book specifically is lacking in the spell department considering the fluff behind her. Lots of little snippets about how cool+awesome magic is and then the actual spell selection she shows off leaves me a bit wanting.

Does feel a little harsh that I might not care if the book had a different lore characters name on it but hey-ho, such is life.

[Moreb Benhk]

I really dont get why they dont do more spells and feats.

They can add more life to so many different character options. To be honest, a wizard, even one of a different school, tends to feel pretty identical to another if they have the same spells. A wizard, even one of the same school, tends to feel pretty different to another if they have different spells.

But isn't that in part because of spell balance issues rather than spell number. There are a number of spells that are straight out superior to other options, so they become the obvious default choices. I'd rather they addressed balance issues with existing spells and cantrips in a book like Tasha's, rather than printing new spells 3.5E style. A spell list of 5000+ spells doesn't actually provide a lot of diversity in play when 1000 are so bad that no body uses them, 2000 are just worse-versions of other spells, and 100 spells break the power curve for utility and impact. In play you'll mostly see the 100 spells (and a smattering of the rest), because people are disincentised from picking objectively less-effective options.

Same thing for feats. Some of them suck pretty hard - so the actual list most people choose between is pretty small.

Plus rebalancing the spell/feat list is newbie friendly as it doesn't add to bloat and removes trap options that will contribute to them feeling inneffective.

[Amdy_vill]

But isn't that in part because of spell balance issues rather than spell number. There are a number of spells that are straight out superior to other options, so they become the obvious default choices. I'd rather they addressed balance issues with existing spells and cantrips in a book like Tasha's, rather than printing new spells 3.5E style. A spell list of 5000+ spells doesn't actually provide a lot of diversity in play when 1000 are so bad that no body uses them, 2000 are just worse-versions of other spells, and 100 spells break the power curve for utility and impact. In play you'll mostly see the 100 spells (and a smattering of the rest), because people are disincentised from picking objectively less-effective options.

Same thing for feats. Some of them suck pretty hard - so the actual list most people choose between is pretty small.

Plus rebalancing the spell/feat list is newbie friendly as it doesn't add to bloat and removes trap options that will contribute to them feeling inneffective.

I agree but we are talking about there being ideas you just can execute in dnd. acid draconic sorcerers are almost impossible. they have more support now but still lack spells in certain levels. When I say we need more spells I am focusing on this type of spell expantion.

[sophontteks]

I agree but we are talking about there being ideas you just can execute in dnd. acid draconic sorcerers are almost impossible. they have more support now but still lack spells in certain levels. When I say we need more spells I am focusing on this type of spell expantion.
There is a new metamagic that lets them change the damage type, so acid fireballs are now a thing.

[MrStabby]

But isn't that in part because of spell balance issues rather than spell number. There are a number of spells that are straight out superior to other options, so they become the obvious default choices. I'd rather they addressed balance issues with existing spells and cantrips in a book like Tasha's, rather than printing new spells 3.5E style. A spell list of 5000+ spells doesn't actually provide a lot of diversity in play when 1000 are so bad that no body uses them, 2000 are just worse-versions of other spells, and 100 spells break the power curve for utility and impact. In play you'll mostly see the 100 spells (and a smattering of the rest), because people are disincentised from picking objectively less-effective options.

Same thing for feats. Some of them suck pretty hard - so the actual list most people choose between is pretty small.

Plus rebalancing the spell/feat list is newbie friendly as it doesn't add to bloat and removes trap options that will contribute to them feeling inneffective.

But this also applies to subclasses as well. I can count the number of frenzy barbarians, 4 elements monks, champion fighters that I have DMed for on the fingers of one head. Whatever it is people are choosing from they tend to pick the better option. Its true of any content. Yet still they release new subclasses.

I dont think that the issue of a characters spell list being too powerful is an issue either. Much like alternative class features, create some spells as alternatives. If there was a spell that was a explicit replacement for wall of force, as in you could have one or the other, then there wouldnt be much of a problem at all.

[Amdy_vill]

There is a new metamagic that lets them change the damage type, so acid fireballs are now a thing.

yes but its part of an optional rule and only helps one acid base character.

[GeoffWatson]

Not sure I agree with the "it is not enough for me to succeed; others must fail" mentality being applied to a cooperative game. The biggest flaw of 3.X was Ivory Tower game design, which ended up bloating the game with a fair amount of crap. Imagine how much better it could've been if they weren't actively trying to make the game worse for some people. I'm in favor of more spells (and maneuvers and feats and so on) for providing a greater number of options, but they absolutely should not put stuff in the game to potentially make certain players play worse. And if not for those players' sake then for the sake of their groups.

That 3.x flaw was an after the fact rationalization - rather than admit they were incompetent at balance, they said it was on purpose.

[sophontteks]

yes but its part of an optional rule and only helps one acid base character.
It's a rule in the new book that addresses your concern. I can play a sorcerer as any element and change the element with sorcery points to fill in the gaps.

I don't put too much stake on it being optional. Feats are optional and I've yet to see a game run without them.

[Luccan]

That 3.x flaw was an after the fact rationalization - rather than admit they were incompetent at balance, they said it was on purpose.

Whether it was or not (I'm inclined to believe at least some of it was, if for no other reason than they explicitly made decisions targeted to make classes they didn't like weaker), it's still not a design philosophy I'm comfortable with for a co-operative tabletop RPG. And it seemed to be the sort of thing Bilbron was advocating.

[Amdy_vill]

It's a rule in the new book that addresses your concern. I can play a sorcerer as any element and change the element with sorcery points to fill in the gaps.

I don't put too much stake on it being optional. Feats are optional and I've yet to see a game run without them.

I understand this point of view but the class options have been controversial since they were in ua. I will allow them at my table but a large group has dislike both the new class options and the race choices because of their increased power I also don't believe we know if their al legal which if they are not would likely make the division worse IMHO

[Moreb Benhk]

But this also applies to subclasses as well. I can count the number of frenzy barbarians, 4 elements monks, champion fighters that I have DMed for on the fingers of one head. Whatever it is people are choosing from they tend to pick the better option. Its true of any content. Yet still they release new subclasses.
400% Same criticism applies for subclasses. Some of the most ridiculous stuff to come through has been stealth patches on weak stuff (cough... Hexblade... cough). Balance issues in subclasses are worse than the subclass not existing in some ways, because they give you the appearance of choice (much like a bloated spell list) but without actual choices to make, and a lot of the time the fluffy and concept of the subclasses can be really cool, but just poorly implemented. But this has been a fairly constant issue in DnD. Heck even 4e the 'balance is all' version of DnD was rife with power options that were absolutely awful which were up against some really strong options, and had a few classes in them that were worse at their schtick than adapting one of the other classes for it.


I dont think that the issue of a characters spell list being too powerful is an issue either. Much like alternative class features, create some spells as alternatives. If there was a spell that was a explicit replacement for wall of force, as in you could have one or the other, then there wouldnt be much of a problem at all.

Unless it was a stealth errata for Wall of Force that is either better or worse (depending on the issue with the original spell) under the guise of a new spell option - in which case you have a trap option and (potentially) still leave any existing issues unaddressed. I think spell lists become too powerful because they are improved/expanded in ways that no other class features experience. Spellcasting is already the most versatile and customisable and power-scaling class feature that exists, and DnD has a bad habit of beefing it up further while leaving everything else more or less as-is.

[MaxWilson]

That 3.x flaw was an after the fact rationalization - rather than admit they were incompetent at balance, they said it was on purpose.

Are you talking about Monte Cook's blog post? (Quoted at https://4thmaster.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/ivory-tower-game-design/) Because that's not his point. What he said is that given that certain feats like Toughness are niche, he wishes they'd been more upfront and conversational in communicating what those feats are NOT for.

5E made this same mistake BTW. If they'd taken Monte's advice, Weapon Master for example would have some advice about who ought to take it, a la "this feat isn't for serious warriors, it's for niche low-level wizards who want to pretend to be warriors without delaying their access to spells--but if you're planning to go beyond 5th level this feat isn't good for you."

Quoting Monte's post: "To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It’s also handy when you know you’re playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don’t want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).

"Ivory Tower Game Design requires a two-step process on the part of the reader. You read the rule, and then you think about how it fits in with the rest of the game. There’s a moment of understanding, and then a moment of comprehension. That’s not a terrible thing, but neither is just providing the reader with both steps, at least some of the time.

"While there’s something to be said for just giving gamers the rules to do with as they please, there’s just as much to be said for simply giving it to the reader straight in a more honest, conversational approach. Perhaps that’s what the upcoming D&D for Dummies book will be. I hope so."

5E is also an Ivory Tower game.

[Bilbron]

Not sure I agree with the "it is not enough for me to succeed; others must fail" mentality being applied to a cooperative game. The biggest flaw of 3.X was Ivory Tower game design, which ended up bloating the game with a fair amount of crap. Imagine how much better it could've been if they weren't actively trying to make the game worse for some people. I'm in favor of more spells (and maneuvers and feats and so on) for providing a greater number of options, but they absolutely should not put stuff in the game to potentially make certain players play worse. And if not for those players' sake then for the sake of their groups.
I don't think it's necessarily about others failing (though Vidal has a point about the human experience of schadenfraude), but rather a personal competitiveness that is present in many players in sports/games. Optimizing rules and becoming personally powerful is the most fun aspect of the game for me and many others (which is not to imply that we don't value RP or understand that the point of the game is for everyone to have fun).

[Pex]

I agree with all of this but I feel that all the summon x spirit spells could have just been compressed into 2 a 3rd level and 4th level with all the same features but just more options. what do you think of that?

They're separated to reflect the class theme. A druid isn't thematically appropriate to cast Summon Celestial. A cleric wouldn't cast Summon Fey. Not counting class list they could, but it stretches verisimillitude. Combining them may save space in the physical printing of pages in the book, but the choice of thematics taking priority is not unreasonable.


I agree but we are talking about there being ideas you just can execute in dnd. acid draconic sorcerers are almost impossible. they have more support now but still lack spells in certain levels. When I say we need more spells I am focusing on this type of spell expantion.

Slightly fixed with Transmuted Spell. A player could find it cool to get Acidball using it, but your point stands. That metamagic becomes a tax, not a choice. A new player may not notice and have genuine fun in his ignorance. Once you become experienced playing the game is when it becomes a bother.

[Luccan]

I don't think it's necessarily about others failing (though Vidal has a point about the human experience of schadenfraude), but rather a personal competitiveness that is present in many players in sports/games. Optimizing rules and becoming personally powerful is the most fun aspect of the game for me and many others (which is not to imply that we don't value RP or understand that the point of the game is for everyone to have fun).

I'll acknowledge the satisfaction that comes from system mastery and being able to know the most efficient way of achieving X or why you might actually want to do it this other way and so on. But I believe you can get that without screwing over "bad" players. At the very least you can do so while focusing on trying to make everything you add to the game worthwhile. Apologies if I misunderstood your sentiment, but it was what I read as the implication that trap options are desirable that frustrated me. In my view, piling books with bad options makes them worth less to the overall game.

[RifleAvenger]

I'll acknowledge the satisfaction that comes from system mastery and being able to know the most efficient way of achieving X or why you might actually want to do it this other way and so on. But I believe you can get that without screwing over "bad" players. At the very least you can do so while focusing on trying to make everything you add to the game worthwhile. Apologies if I misunderstood your sentiment, but it was what I read as the implication that trap options are desirable that frustrated me. In my view, piling books with bad options makes them worth less to the overall game.

It's also incredibly annoying when you DO have system mastery, and see an option that would make for a really cool character... if it wasn't garbage from being incredibly conditional or otherwise awful.

There's also the fact that having good options does not mean those good options will be applied well in play. I once forgot that my PF1e Arcanist had recently acquired Scrying before another player angrily reminded me, after I puttered around in the inn for several hours ICly while another party member was missing. Another player in that same game has not used Power Attack ONCE in the entire game, despite taking it.

[Devils_Advocate]

I dont think that the issue of a characters spell list being too powerful is an issue either.
I get what you mean, of course, but saying that an issue isn't an issue is somewhat amusing phrasing. ;)


An unweildy list to select from is how a game gives good players the opportunity to have better PCs than bad players. A small list of nothing but good spells/options forces bad players into good choices. A game that forces everyone to be good is like a school exercise with no winners and participation trophies all around... a great safe space, but no fun for anyone.
A large and unbalanced list of traits to select for a player character lets better character-builders have better-optimized PCs than bad character-builders. I would hesitate to call character creation and level-up choices part of "playing" Dungeons & Dragons. It's more like a prerequisite to playing D&D, with the actual play part consisting of choosing what one's character does. I do believe that there is a contingent of old-school gamers who dislike "character builds" because they remove the need to be a good player.

The opposite sentiment may now be more common. I recall someone lamenting that it was possible to create a perfectly functional character in 4th Edition by selecting powers randomly. It seems that at least some players have become enamored of character generation as a winnable minigame to the extent that game balance is distasteful if not outright loathsome to you.

No set of functionally different options will ever be perfectly balanced anyway. A slew of options of widely varying power levels doesn't add the opportunity to do better through greater system mastery. It adds the opportunity to relatively easily have a cheesed-out character by reading through all of the books and contrasting varying possibilities to find the overpowered ones, and it also adds the opportunity to relatively easily have a pathetically underpowerd character by just fleshing out a character concept based on the limited material you're aware of.

Someone who wanted system mastery to be challenging wouldn't want any of that. Someone who wanted optimizing a character to be a true test of skill would want limited options that were intended to be balanced with each other, so that seriously smashing that intended balance would then be really hard. Then having a super min/maxed PC would be an accomplishment that demonstrated more than just the time and the willingness to read through all of the available options and make the easy comparisons.

As-balanced-as-possible systems aren't just for those who want different character options to be equally supported. They're also for those who want to truly show off their leet character-optimization skillz. To the extent that powerful characters are easy to make, the players who don't have them will generally be the ones who don't care to.

[MaxWilson]

As-balanced-as-possible systems aren't just for those who want different character options to be equally supported. They're also for those who want to truly show off their leet character-optimization skillz. To the extent that powerful characters are easy to make, the players who don't have them will generally be the ones who don't care to.

You would think that would be true but it doesn't seem to be in practice. What's obvious to and easy for one person is not to and for another.

[PhoenixPhyre]

On the topic of system mastery (and its multiple meanings), my ideal world would be one where system mastery doesn't really increase power, but instead increases the range of characters one can build.

Imagine a system where the "core character types" have obvious builds. You want a strong, tanky melee fighter? There's an obvious path for that. You want a nimble archer? There's an obvious path for that. Etc for a group of aesthetically-chosen character types. All of these are roughly balanced (as much as you can balance characters), but the important thing is that they're obvious. Any new player picking up the book will, just by virtue of choosing the options that "sound like" one of those character types will get a competent character. Just picking things at random without any thought for thematics would end up leaving you sub-par. Not terminally so, but noticeably.

And then imagine that knowing all the ins-and-outs of the system really couldn't give you more raw power. Instead, it would let you play in parts of the character-build space that aren't obvious, thus widening the range of themes you could make competent characters for. So system mastery is capped hard in power terms--the most "clever" build isn't going to have more raw power than one of the obvious ones, but will let you play things that aren't covered in the obvious paths.

I don't know if that kind of system is even feasible to make, but yeah.
-------------
On that note, trap options, for me, have negative value. Having 100 options, of which 50 are meh, 20 are traps, and 30 are actually good is way worse than just having 10 good options and 20 meh ones. And I'd prefer 15 good options with no meh or traps to even 50 good options and 50 traps. Each trap roughly counts as -2 or -3 good options.

Edit: And I find "showing off system mastery" in competitive builds (or "winning at character creation") to be utterly repugnant. Do that in a wargame. Don't do it in a cooperative roleplaying game.

[Bilbron]

Edit: And I find "showing off system mastery" in competitive builds (or "winning at character creation") to be utterly repugnant. Do that in a wargame. Don't do it in a cooperative roleplaying game.

I actually think powergamers have a valuable role in a cooperative RPG. D&D is particularly lethal due to the single d20 system and a plethora of save-or-suck mechanics, so bad dice can easily lead to a TPK scenario. But if there's a powergamer lurking in the back, who doesn't go all out most battles in the interests of everyone having fun and contributing hero moments, but in the face of a TPK can really ramp it up and bail the party out... man, that's a real nice thing to have in D&D. Because we're all here to have fun, and TPK's or even permanent PC deaths are no fun for anyone.

And don't forget, some campaigns DO run the game as war. Like my own... where 4x 9th level PCs recently encountered a CR 16 Legendary Devil and his legion of 15x CR4 minions. Almost a TPK until my PC exerted himself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I actually think powergamers have a valuable role in a cooperative RPG. D&D is particularly lethal due to the single d20 system and a plethora of save-or-suck mechanics, so bad dice can easily lead to a TPK scenario. But if there's a powergamer lurking in the back, who doesn't go all out most battles in the interests of everyone having fun and contributing hero moments, but in the face of a TPK can really ramp it up and bail the party out... man, that's a real nice thing to have in D&D. Because we're all here to have fun, and TPK's or even permanent PC deaths are no fun for anyone.

And don't forget, some campaigns DO run the game as war. Like my own... where 4x 9th level PCs recently encountered a CR 16 Legendary Devil and his legion of 15x CR4 minions. Almost a TPK until my PC exerted himself.

I find that horrible design. Because now, everyone knows that either
a) we can slack off and <person> will cover for us (which breaks team-based verisimilitude to pieces)
b) we're only here so that <person> can show off when rescuing us (which sets up a protagonist vs supporting cast vibe I dislike, like a bad shonen anime).

D&D is supposed to be a team of equals, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. If one person doesn't really need the party, or if one person can turn an encounter like that around just by "exerting himself", that's not a team of equals. That's a pity save and condescending pats on the head.

And it has nothing to do with war vs sport (I hate those terms FYI)--it has to do with internal competitiveness. If the objective is to win vs the rest of the party (to show them that you're better/smarter/whatever), then play a competitive game. That mentality (winning vs other players) has absolutely no place in a cooperative game, at least one that I want to play.

I don't have the issue with trying to build good characters for its own sake. I do have the issue when one person is trying to beat another person at a non-competitive game.

[Bilbron]

I find that horrible design. Because now, everyone knows that either
a) we can slack off and <person> will cover for us (which breaks team-based verisimilitude to pieces)
b) we're only here so that <person> can show off when rescuing us (which sets up a protagonist vs supporting cast vibe I dislike, like a bad shonen anime).

D&D is supposed to be a team of equals, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. If one person doesn't really need the party, or if one person can turn an encounter like that around just by "exerting himself", that's not a team of equals. That's a pity save and condescending pats on the head.

And it has nothing to do with war vs sport (I hate those terms FYI)--it has to do with internal competitiveness. If the objective is to win vs the rest of the party (to show them that you're better/smarter/whatever), then play a competitive game. That mentality (winning vs other players) has absolutely no place in a cooperative game, at least one that I want to play.

I don't have the issue with trying to build good characters for its own sake. I do have the issue when one person is trying to beat another person at a non-competitive game.I wouldn't say that I'm trying to be more powerful than anyone else. It's that I'm trying to become as powerful as possible, and if I'm doing so effectively, I must ipso facto be stronger than my colleagues, otherwise I'm just spinning my wheels. It's not with the intent of showing anyone up or ruining anyone else's fun, which seems baked into your perspective but doesn't seem to me to be a given when dealing with a powergamer.

I think there is a significant philosophical conflict here. You have a vision in your head of what D&D is "supposed to be", whereas in my view, PCs are never exactly equal because players themselves are never exactly equal... some are just smarter, more talented, or more experienced at whatever aspects of the game/sport are relevant in the moment.

As a result, (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm painting with a broad brush here) players like you tend to want to "fix" the game so that you achieve your desire of "everyone being equal", in large part by proverbially "baby-proofing" the game by removing all traps and sharp corners (i.e. limiting all options to neutral or positive outcomes). Players like me say "life isn't fair, and there's nothing that can be done to change that no matter how tempting central planning might be (due to the Information Problem and the Calculation Problem, but I digress) but if I work at it, I can gain an advantage, and this is both warranted and just by the fact that I'm investing so many more resources, and it's pretty lame that all these other folks seem to have more fun by cutting me down to their level rather than observing and learning and working to rise to mine."

My own campaign is one powergamer (me) and 4x flavor players who aren't concerned with their power level and are developing their characters according to their vision of their personalities in the context of campaign influences. I participate heavily in the RP and interaction and exploration aspects of the game, and I very rarely flaunt my power, just quietly getting beastlier and beastlier with every level. In combat, I support the party in non-flashy ways, so that usually the excited chatter after the battle is about my Light Cleric's Sunlight Javelins and my Paladin's amazing Smites, while I am just happy knowing that my Slow silently eliminated 18x halberd attacks per round, my 10x Tiny Servants gave a good accounting of themselves, my obscurement shut down the BBEG's main attack as I'd planned, etc.

I do understand that powergaming often comes with an arrogant, condescending attitude and a showboating playstyle that turns people off, but I think that's bad powergaming. I should actually probably do a video on this, now that I think about it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I wouldn't say that I'm trying to be more powerful than anyone else. It's that I'm trying to become as powerful as possible, and if I'm doing so effectively, I must ipso facto be stronger than my colleagues, otherwise I'm just spinning my wheels. It's not with the intent of showing anyone up or ruining anyone else's fun, which seems baked into your perspective but doesn't seem to me to be a given when dealing with a powergamer.

I think there is a significant philosophical conflict here. You have a vision in your head of what D&D is "supposed to be", whereas in my view, PCs are never exactly equal because players themselves are never exactly equal... some are just smarter, more talented, or more experienced at whatever aspects of the game/sport are relevant in the moment.

As a result, (please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm painting with a broad brush here) players like you tend to want to "fix" the game so that you achieve your desire of "everyone being equal", in large part by proverbially "baby-proofing" the game by removing all traps and sharp corners (i.e. limiting all options to neutral or positive outcomes). Players like me say "life isn't fair, and there's nothing that can be done to change that no matter how tempting central planning might be (due to the Information Problem and the Calculation Problem, but I digress) but if I work at it, I can gain an advantage, and this is both warranted and just by the fact that I'm investing so many more resources, and it's pretty lame that all these other folks seem to have more fun by cutting me down to their level rather than observing and learning and working to rise to mine."

My own campaign is one powergamer (me) and 4x flavor players who aren't concerned with their power level and are developing their characters according to their vision of their personalities in the context of campaign influences. I participate heavily in the RP and interaction and exploration aspects of the game, and I very rarely flaunt my power, just quietly getting beastlier and beastlier with every level. In combat, I support the party in non-flashy ways, so that usually the excited chatter after the battle is about my Light Cleric's Sunlight Javelins and my Paladin's amazing Smites, while I am just happy knowing that my Slow silently eliminated 18x halberd attacks per round, my 10x Tiny Servants gave a good accounting of themselves, my obscurement shut down the BBEG's main attack as I'd planned, etc.

I do understand that powergaming often comes with an arrogant, condescending attitude and a showboating playstyle that turns people off, but I think that's bad powergaming. I should actually probably do a video on this, now that I think about it.

Sorry, that whole post oozes arrogance and condescension. The fact that you don't see that is exactly the problem here. You're talking about how you're just so much better than everyone else--you can RP but also do the power stuff, and they can't, those poor pitiful little fools.

You see power in relative terms--that to be powerful you must be more powerful than your colleagues. That's an inherently arrogant, condescending attitude. Instead of measuring vs neutral yardsticks, you're measuring in a win/loss (either I win at being the most powerful or I lose) way. And that's the opposite of cooperation--that's the essence of competition.

I take my vision of what D&D is "supposed to be" from the designers themselves--


D&D is about small bands of characters embarking on adventures together. Teamwork and friendship are a huge part of what makes D&D distinct as a brand. The lone knight fighting a dragon is less characteristic of D&D than an adventuring team fighting a dragon. People on their own get into trouble; a team that works together can triumph.

Those that can "do it all" have no part in D&D. And note, a character that can turn around a mega-deadly just by "exerting themselves" is out-of-balance with the rest of the team. It's like having a level 20 character along with a bunch of level 5s. In 3e. From an in-character viewpoint, the other characters have to wonder (as do those in places like FR with mega-NPCs) "why doesn't he just do it all himself" or "why are we struggling? He can just blow it all away if he tries." It's literally the shonen anime trope of the chosen hero having the sidekicks along so that he has a reason to get worked up and actually defeat the big bad. The sidekicks can't really do anything, they're just along for the ride as the cheer squad and convenient targets.

I don't want everyone to be equal by force--I want the obvious solutions to be good solutions. Adding trap options wastes developer time, player time, and causes friction at the table. Adding them intentionally just so that arrogant power-gamers can show off how great they are is not just a waste, it's toxic. It'd be like a fighting game adding "trap characters" who look attractive to noobs but suck. Except worse, because now you're stuck with them for a game that goes on and on instead of just a single match. In something that's supposed to be cooperative.

Ideally, a new player could pick up "what fits my idea" on a quick read and have a competent character. Traps make that impossible. As do broken abilities and combos, because they reset the acceptable level of competence. Which turns the game inevitably into an arms race. The powergamers want to be challenged[1], so the DM has to challenge them. But the only way to do that is to amp up the difficulty, so now the non-powergamers either can't contribute or get instantly blown away by the challenges that actually stretch the powergamer. Which breaks their fun entirely. I've seen it happen.

It also shatters worldbuilding and verisimilitude (something I care about deeply) entirely. Having that huge gap in power levels without substantial differences in starting points means that the worlds stop making sense. Same with all superhero settings--the very existence of such people means that the world becomes incoherent, unless the sups are limited so substantially that they aren't that much different than normal people. This is the OP NPC problem--why are there problems for little guys to do, when the big guys canonically could do it all themselves without trouble? And worse. Why aren't there villains with that much power who crush the heroes before they can get off the ground and accumulate any power? The only way to stop that is to permanently weld the idiot ball into the villains hands. Huge power gaps are fatal to anything like coherent worlds or stories. They work in media that doesn't care about coherence (ie superhero and anime, where it's all about the spectacle), but I actually do care about coherence in my worlds.

[1] or worse, they just want to win without being challenged and will whine if they ever can't do their special thing. Those are a lot of the powergamers I see on these forums--they whine if the DM doesn't let them twist rules and ignore limitations to their hearts' delight--they get their pleasure from breaking things and finding loopholes. And that's not a style I want to have anything to do with.

[Pex]

I actually think powergamers have a valuable role in a cooperative RPG. D&D is particularly lethal due to the single d20 system and a plethora of save-or-suck mechanics, so bad dice can easily lead to a TPK scenario. But if there's a powergamer lurking in the back, who doesn't go all out most battles in the interests of everyone having fun and contributing hero moments, but in the face of a TPK can really ramp it up and bail the party out... man, that's a real nice thing to have in D&D. Because we're all here to have fun, and TPK's or even permanent PC deaths are no fun for anyone.

And don't forget, some campaigns DO run the game as war. Like my own... where 4x 9th level PCs recently encountered a CR 16 Legendary Devil and his legion of 15x CR4 minions. Almost a TPK until my PC exerted himself.

There's nothing wrong with Powergaming. What's wrong is having fun dependent on other players being The Suck to prove superiority.

[Azuresun]

I don't have the issue with trying to build good characters for its own sake. I do have the issue when one person is trying to beat another person at a non-competitive game.

One very telling thing about CharOp threads that I notice over and over is that almost none of them assume the character has allies (other than any they bring with them). The wizard will never cast Fly or Haste on the barbarian. The rogue will never have advantage because the druid entangled the enemies. It seems to be based around a bunch of grim loners all fighting to do the most solo DPS.

[Bilbron]

Sorry, that whole post oozes arrogance and condescension. The fact that you don't see that is exactly the problem here. You're talking about how you're just so much better than everyone else--you can RP but also do the power stuff, and they can't, those poor pitiful little fools.

You see power in relative terms--that to be powerful you must be more powerful than your colleagues. That's an inherently arrogant, condescending attitude.
I appreciate your response and perspective. Many thanks.


One very telling thing about CharOp threads that I notice over and over is that almost none of them assume the character has allies (other than any they bring with them). The wizard will never cast Fly or Haste on the barbarian. The rogue will never have advantage because the druid entangled the enemies. It seems to be based around a bunch of grim loners all fighting to do the most solo DPS.That's not a very good powergamer then, IMO. Personally I need the party as I'm fairly toothless myself (my only offense is cantrips, Tiny Servants, Polymorph, and a Summon). I've been mostly spending my concentration on debuffs like Sleet Storm and Slow. My powergaming takes the form of being impossible to kill and always having options, and involves few hero moments.

But I definitely sense powergaming gets a bad rap. I certainly think it's a minority of players.


There's nothing wrong with Powergaming. What's wrong is having fun dependent on other players being The Suck to prove superiority.From my perspective, what's wrong is that powergaming is immediately viewed that way without a more charitable presumption. Getting a sense of the zeitgeist of modern D&D is a fascinating journey.

I will add that there is a perfectly legitimate reason for a powergamer to hold back... you never know when a Demon will pop up as you're making camp. It makes sense to keep a lot of juice in reserve and let the other party members have most of the hero moments.

The alternative is that the powergamer is blowing all his resources early, in which case all the DM has to do is add a few more battles so that the tapped powergamer can't hog all the glory.

There is a lot more going on here than combat dynamics, in my view.

[Wooloo]

noob question: Is the book even out yet?

[EggKookoo]

Customizing spells, this looked like it would be a discussion on things like burning hands and frost fingers, but instead, it was just a blip about flavoring a spell's appearance. I would have loved it if it explained upon the ideas set in the DMG about customizing spells but instead, it is a restating of the "Let players describe their spells how they want" from the same section of the DMG.

This one jumped out at me too (and I posted about it here). I was pretty disappointed in this. I was expecting a system to let us play with damage types at the very least.


Puzzles, this is what many of the other systems needed. it's well developed and great but I feel it gameifys puzzles a little too much. but this type of development is what most of the other systems needed.

I agree about the gaminess. I've never found it hard to come up with puzzle or logic games. The difficulty for me as a DM was figuring out how to contextualize the puzzle in the setting. Why is there suddenly a puzzle here? Who would put that there? Why not just have, I dunno, a locked door or something? Who hides their stuff behind a mechanism designed to provide entertainment for the thieves trying to steal it?

[Xervous]

noob question: Is the book even out yet?

Yessiree it is.


Again I suspect the apparent rushed nature of the content is exactly what it seems to be. Corporate leaned on WotC to peddle the latest buzzword and handed them a deadline.


On the topic of 5e design and optimization I recall that one quote from Mearls that paraphrases to choice and impactful options being undesirable for 5e because of the types of players it attracts. The interesting thing with 5e is that since the distribution around the normal is assumed to be so tight any deviation that trends towards competency or specialization tends to stand out above the assumed crowd of monkeys on typewriters. It’s not that the system presents a clear and obvious path to making the exceptional melee combatant, more that the system assumes that’s something that shouldn’t exist to begin with.

[WadeWay33]

So, uh, what are the thoughts on some of the magic items? I haven’t seen that discussed a ton yet and I think some are absolutely bonkers, like the spell save DC ones. Those I would give to the half-casters rarely, and outright ban them from full casters.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Summon spells are a useful necessity. Some players are really bothered by the Conjure spells. Some don't like multiple creatures appearing lengthening combat time. Some insist the DM chooses what comes and players don't like loss of control of their own spell or the DM doesn't give them what they want. A better exposition than my own on why the new summons spells are a good addition.

I like more spells. An unweildy list to select from is how a game gives good players the opportunity to have better PCs than bad players. The 3.5 forums are over there. ------------------->

There's also the fact that having good options does not mean those good options will be applied well in play. *raises hand* failed to use cutting words on an attack that did ample damage but only beat AC by one. Had used no bardic inspiration yet that day ... why was someone in our party taking damage? My not thinking clearly. (That I was on my third beer is no excuse)
... b) we're only here so that <person> can show off when rescuing us (which sets up a protagonist vs supporting cast vibe I dislike, like a bad shonen anime).
Seems that our youtube creating colleague finds fun in that style, though.
D&D is supposed to be a team {snip the rest} Yeah, but unfortunately some people stink at being teammates.
There's nothing wrong with Powergaming. What's wrong is having fun dependent on other players being The Suck to prove superiority. Same idea, different presentation, concur.

One very telling thing about CharOp threads that I notice over and over is that almost none of them assume the character has allies (other than any they bring with them). Yep. There is a 'team optimization' thread (Eldariel started it) but we've discovered that it's a bit of a complex multi variable problem.
So, uh, what are the thoughts on some of the magic items? I haven’t seen that discussed a ton yet and I think some are absolutely bonkers, like the spell save DC ones. Those I would give to the half-casters rarely, and outright ban them from full casters. Like the spell lists, half baked. I'll get back to you on the overall after another review, but I think they almost got the tattoos right.

Why I play support characters in this edition: there are a lot of tools that allow me to do that. I am all about team success. One of the places that Treantmonk's approach to wizards sort of got it right, early on in 5e, was the focus on CC and support spells that amplify effectiveness of the whole team. Not DPR. My brother's gnome transmuter took that as his approach and it was remarkably effective once the rest of us 'got' what he was doing for the party.

[Pex]

I agree about the gaminess. I've never found it hard to come up with puzzle or logic games. The difficulty for me as a DM was figuring out how to contextualize the puzzle in the setting. Why is there suddenly a puzzle here? Who would put that there? Why not just have, I dunno, a locked door or something? Who hides their stuff behind a mechanism designed to provide entertainment for the thieves trying to steal it?

It could depend on what's being protected. The Mcguffin could be something that's supposed to be found, but you have to be worthy. Guardians test your brawn. Puzzles test your brain. A different take is puzzles are supposed to slow down the burglars. A skilled enough thief can pick a lock or disarm a trap. It takes time to sort out puzzles. Slow down the infiltrators enough so the owner can intercept them or get to the Mcguffin first by their own method of getting there.

[EggKookoo]

It could depend on what's being protected. The Mcguffin could be something that's supposed to be found, but you have to be worthy. Guardians test your brawn. Puzzles test your brain. A different take is puzzles are supposed to slow down the burglars. A skilled enough thief can pick a lock or disarm a trap. It takes time to sort out puzzles. Slow down the infiltrators enough so the owner can intercept them or get to the Mcguffin first by their own method of getting there.

I never really understood why the thief couldn't just disarm the puzzle?

"TO PASS YOU MUST ARRANGE THESE GEMS IN THE RIGHT SEQUENCE. MANY HAVE TRIED, NONE HAVE... hey, what are doing? Put that panel cover back in place! You're cheating!"

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree about the gaminess. I've never found it hard to come up with puzzle or logic games. The difficulty for me as a DM was figuring out how to contextualize the puzzle in the setting. Why is there suddenly a puzzle here? Who would put that there? Why not just have, I dunno, a locked door or something? Who hides their stuff behind a mechanism designed to provide entertainment for the thieves trying to steal it?

I've only very rarely used puzzles. Two were in-context as a ritual memory aid for the priests of the temples. And one of those had the answers already given (they came in from the "protected" side and needed to get out. It was really fun to watch them try a bunch of things before realizing that the answers were on the handout they'd gotten in the previous room and they just needed to put the things into place in any order). The other real puzzle was a completely out-of-context humor break. The entrance code to the BBEG's lair was the konami code, rebus style. Basically there to lighten the mood after some intense stuff and before some more intense stuff. Totally OOC fun.

My big issue with puzzles is especially with word puzzles. They often rely on the peculiarities of <insert OOC language here>. Things that would make absolutely no sense in universe. I'm all for word play, but those just frustrate me. Especially when they're the "obvious to the DM, but totally out of context" type.

[Amechra]

My big issue with puzzles is especially with word puzzles. They often rely on the peculiarities of <insert OOC language here>. Things that would make absolutely no sense in universe. I'm all for word play, but those just frustrate me. Especially when they're the "obvious to the DM, but totally out of context" type.

The big brain move would be to write the word puzzles in one of the languages you constructed for your setting and then translating it into <insert players' use-language here>... but that idea is so dumb that I can't even satisfactorily explain how dumb it'd be.

[samcifer]

Honestly, I feel that the racial stat change allows for much more fun characters to rp as.

We did a one-shot and the gal of our group played as a gnome barbarian with maxed out strength and loved roleplaying as her very much. I'm looking forward to playing a half-orc sorc in my alternate weekend games and warforged wizards with maxed Intelligence or maybe a Tabaxi barbarian with max Strength.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The big brain move would be to write the word puzzles in one of the languages you constructed for your setting and then translating it into <insert players' use-language here>... but that idea is so dumb that I can't even satisfactorily explain how dumb it'd be.

Yeah. Translating word play between languages you're already fluent in is nearly impossible. Doing it between a con-lang (which yeah, 5+ 9's of DMs don't have) and a real language, in such a way as to preserve the clues and hints you need...yeah. Not gonna happen.

I'll admit that I don't actually have conlangs. I just steal bits and phrases of real languages, mutate them so they sound right, and call it good whenever I need an in-language piece. Dwarvish is based on mongolian, for instance. In keeping with tradition, high-elven is welsh and wood-elven is finnish.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah. Translating word play between languages you're already fluent in is nearly impossible. Doing it between a con-lang (which yeah, 5+ 9's of DMs don't have) and a real language, in such a way as to preserve the clues and hints you need...yeah. Not gonna happen.

I'll admit that I don't actually have conlangs. I just steal bits and phrases of real languages, mutate them so they sound right, and call it good whenever I need an in-language piece. Dwarvish is based on mongolian, for instance. In keeping with tradition, high-elven is welsh and wood-elven is finnish. I guess that makes Common either Old or Middle English?

[Amechra]

Yeah. Translating word play between languages you're already fluent in is nearly impossible. Doing it between a con-lang (which yeah, 5+ 9's of DMs don't have) and a real language, in such a way as to preserve the clues and hints you need...yeah. Not gonna happen.

Yeah, conlanging is something you have to love for itself before you try to incorporate it into your world.


I'll admit that I don't actually have conlangs. I just steal bits and phrases of real languages, mutate them so they sound right, and call it good whenever I need an in-language piece. Dwarvish is based on mongolian, for instance. In keeping with tradition, high-elven is welsh and wood-elven is finnish.

Obligatory link to the best elven language. (http://jbr.me.uk/crypto.html)

[samcifer]

Yeah, conlanging is something you have to love for itself before you try to incorporate it into your world.



Obligatory link to the best elven language. (http://jbr.me.uk/crypto.html)

If you *can* do so successfully, I'd like to offer you my conlang-ulations…

(sorry, I had to say it. :) )

[Pex]

I never really understood why the thief couldn't just disarm the puzzle?

"TO PASS YOU MUST ARRANGE THESE GEMS IN THE RIGHT SEQUENCE. MANY HAVE TRIED, NONE HAVE... hey, what are doing? Put that panel cover back in place! You're cheating!"

Moving the panels into the correct place is an elaborate combination lock. Disabling won't open the Thing. In another perspective, solving the puzzle is the disabling.

[Willie the Duck]

I'll acknowledge the satisfaction that comes from system mastery and being able to know the most efficient way of achieving X or why you might actually want to do it this other way and so on. But I believe you can get that without screwing over "bad" players. At the very least you can do so while focusing on trying to make everything you add to the game worthwhile. Apologies if I misunderstood your sentiment, but it was what I read as the implication that trap options are desirable that frustrated me. In my view, piling books with bad options makes them worth less to the overall game.


There's nothing wrong with Powergaming. What's wrong is having fun dependent on other players being The Suck to prove superiority.

With regards to system mastery, powergaming, and what is acceptable/what is best -- what I really want from the system is one where the playgroup that pushes the 'win by careful analysis/internet lookup of the rules and combos' style of play would not morph the entire play experience into something unrecognizable to someone who sat down with their 8-12 y.o. kids and played a game of <said system>. D&D 3e, when optimized (towards the end of the publication run) had best builds which were some conglomeration of 4-5 classes/PrCs (none of which you took all the way through) where by level 20 you got nearly fighterlike # of attacks along with Level 9 spells in 1-2 spellcasting classes, and none of it really mattered because the optimal tactics were scry-and-die or living in hermetically sealed demiplanes while sending ice assassin clones of your enemies out to kill them. Some poor schmoe wandering in from other editions asking, 'so, are two handed swords or weapon-and-shied better in this version?' were just operating on a different level to the point of the two being effectively different games. 5e, regardless of how much powergaming you do, doesn't seem to rise to that level.

[micahaphone]

From anyone who has Tasha's, I'm curious if the puzzles are as bad as this example posted on reddit make it seem. Like, this puzzle seems like a good start that then veers into moon logic, is this one the worst of the bunch or does every puzzle listed have similar wild leaps in logic.

https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/jx0k9k/pso_public_service_opinion_the_puzzles_in_tashas/

[EggKookoo]

From anyone who has Tasha's, I'm curious if the puzzles are as bad as this example posted on reddit make it seem. Like, this puzzle seems like a good start that then veers into moon logic, is this one the worst of the bunch or does every puzzle listed have similar wild leaps in logic.

https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/jx0k9k/pso_public_service_opinion_the_puzzles_in_tashas/

If the players can't work it out, a DC 10 Investigation check reveals that "The character deduces that the number of creatures in a painting is important and uses that number to determine which letter of the creature’s name they should review." A DC 10 Perception check reveals that "When looking at the dedication, the words “count on” alert the character that they should count the creatures."

All of the puzzles have check-based hints that can help stuck players.

[micahaphone]

If the players can't work it out, a DC 10 Investigation check reveals that "The character deduces that the number of creatures in a painting is important and uses that number to determine which letter of the creature’s name they should review." A DC 10 Perception check reveals that "When looking at the dedication, the words “count on” alert the character that they should count the creatures."

All of the puzzles have check-based hints that can help stuck players.

I find the original puzzle way too convoluted, but then a DC 10 investigation check gives you 95% of the solution. The type of creature and the number of them is obviously important, I'm sure my players would get that, but the second step of "use that number on the creatures name to get a single letter from each painting" seems very specific and that there's nothing pointing to that other than this investigation check. The perception check doesn't tell you anything new, but the investigation check turns it into a word scramble.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If the players can't work it out, a DC 10 Investigation check reveals that "The character deduces that the number of creatures in a painting is important and uses that number to determine which letter of the creature’s name they should review." A DC 10 Perception check reveals that "When looking at the dedication, the words “count on” alert the character that they should count the creatures."

All of the puzzles have check-based hints that can help stuck players.

And this is exactly the sort of real-world-language-based puzzle that I find so obnoxious. Because it assumes that game-language (and all of them) has the same letters in the same order, that the game languages are just straight up letter-by-letter transcriptions of English. Ugh. Hate. Hate. Hate.

...

I may have a problem with over-thinking worldbuilding things.

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, all of these puzzles are bonkers. Like this one:

You find a box, a lock on each of the four sides. Each lock has an image on it: A bat, a snake, a wolf and a spider.

Nearby are four keys with a different number of teeth: six, four, five and three.

Here is the starting clue

The spells on these locks are all the same
Though each possesses a different name
Count your answers to unlock the way
But use the wrong key to your dismay.


And, assuming you get the DC ten checks you know this

"Natural" knowledge of bats, snakes, spiders, and wolves in general wont' help here

The key's skull-shaped heads are all the same and likely have no bearing on the puzzle's solution.





But that is an easy one. How about this.

Here is the clue

Four Elementals trapped in stone,
Their elements ordered to lock their home.
Even patterns against all odd,
a tile misplaced awakens its god.
In proper order safely seal these four,
or best one of each to open the door

It is fairly easy to investigate and figure this part out by checking out nearby murals with a lot of deatails, but it is also one of your two extra clues

△ -> Fire
▽ -> Water
◮ -> Air
⧩ -> Earth

Here is the pattern you have

△ ⧩ ▽ ▽ △ ◮ ▽ △ △ ⧩

And you have these four tiles to place by the end to continue the pattern ( ◮ / △ / △ / ▽)


Easy right?
Oh right, the last clue. The words even and odd are important.

[EggKookoo]

And this is exactly the sort of real-world-language-based puzzle that I find so obnoxious. Because it assumes that game-language (and all of them) has the same letters in the same order, that the game languages are just straight up letter-by-letter transcriptions of English. Ugh. Hate. Hate. Hate.

My games exist in a kind of quantum-mechanics-like realm of uncertainty. The players don't have 100% clear fidelity into what's going on in the fiction. It's all "translated" in some way. So if a puzzle requires you to count the four gnolls in a painting and pick the corresponding letter in the Common word "gnoll" so you end up with L, it's not a given that the characters in the fiction literally saw "4" or "gnoll" or "L." They saw some equivalent.

But the problem of logic leaps can be handled with some proper context. If you prime the players by showing them the significance of word counts and letter order earlier in the dungeon or location, it's easier for them the make the connection when faced with the puzzle. It becomes a kind of theme that builds on itself. That's what I was talking about earlier when I say I struggle with contextualizing puzzles -- they need to feel integrated into the setting, rather than just "ok, you crawl through the dungeon and now you're faced with something out of a Nintendo game."

[micahaphone]

All these puzzles feel like they have a good base or root, like I could take this setup (portraits of monsters, 4 keys and 4 locks, elemental glyph patterns) and make a good puzzle myself, but the direction they went with feels like an old point and click adventure game. Having hints that just tell you what to do isn't a fix for weird puzzle design.

I actually quite like the alchemy symbol pattern one, and that it has the explicitly stated caveat of "if you just wanna fight all the elementals summoned by wrong answers, that'll also open the door". The fact that you need two separate patterns (hinted at by the evens and odds) really makes it hard but there's no logical gaps here.

And it doesn't run into the problem of other languages (real or fictional) having different spellings, as the puzzle room defines the symbols explicitly as a part of the setup. The murals (assumedly) defining what the symbols are makes it feel contextual to the world, and this would be easy to slot into some elemental or summoner themed dungeon

At first the "even and odd" part of the starting riddle made me think it was another "count the letters in a word" puzzle, with fire being even and the rest being odd, but the given information quickly shows that's not the case.

[Willie the Duck]

And this is exactly the sort of real-world-language-based puzzle that I find so obnoxious. Because it assumes that game-language (and all of them) has the same letters in the same order, that the game languages are just straight up letter-by-letter transcriptions of English. Ugh. Hate. Hate. Hate.
...
I may have a problem with over-thinking worldbuilding things.


My games exist in a kind of quantum-mechanics-like realm of uncertainty. The players don't have 100% clear fidelity into what's going on in the fiction. It's all "translated" in some way. So if a puzzle requires you to count the four gnolls in a painting and pick the corresponding letter in the Common word "gnoll" so you end up with L, it's not a given that the characters in the fiction literally saw "4" or "gnoll" or "L." They saw some equivalent.

But the problem of logic leaps can be handled with some proper context. If you prime the players by showing them the significance of word counts and letter order earlier in the dungeon or location, it's easier for them the make the connection when faced with the puzzle. It becomes a kind of theme that builds on itself. That's what I was talking about earlier when I say I struggle with contextualizing puzzles -- they need to feel integrated into the setting, rather than just "ok, you crawl through the dungeon and now you're faced with something out of a Nintendo game."

It's a common trope (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TranslationConvention) that obviously the characters aren't using the English language, but they are using something analogous which would have its own equivalent language puzzles.

The alternative is creating a fictive language and creating word games to play in that language (which probably would make your players roll their eyes at you so hard they'd do permanent damage), or not get to use any kind of word puzzles/puns/etc. (which would be too bad).

[PhoenixPhyre]

or not get to use any kind of word puzzles/puns/etc. (which would be too bad).

Not in my mind (the would be too bad part). I'm fine with translation convention, but not for puzzles. Because that ends up being something that challenges only the player side, OOC. And that would either be trivial for the character or impossible. And that makes me not like it.

I use plenty of puns. They're just not in-character puzzles.

[Chaosmancer]

All these puzzles feel like they have a good base or root, like I could take this setup (portraits of monsters, 4 keys and 4 locks, elemental glyph patterns) and make a good puzzle myself, but the direction they went with feels like an old point and click adventure game. Having hints that just tell you what to do isn't a fix for weird puzzle design.

I actually quite like the alchemy symbol pattern one, and that it has the explicitly stated caveat of "if you just wanna fight all the elementals summoned by wrong answers, that'll also open the door". The fact that you need two separate patterns (hinted at by the evens and odds) really makes it hard but there's no logical gaps here.

And it doesn't run into the problem of other languages (real or fictional) having different spellings, as the puzzle room defines the symbols explicitly as a part of the setup. The murals (assumedly) defining what the symbols are makes it feel contextual to the world, and this would be easy to slot into some elemental or summoner themed dungeon

At first the "even and odd" part of the starting riddle made me think it was another "count the letters in a word" puzzle, with fire being even and the rest being odd, but the given information quickly shows that's not the case.


Honestly, even seeing the solution didn't make much sense to me. I had to explicitly read the breakdown of the pattern to even have a hope of following it.

And no player at the table I have is going to figure it out.

[micahaphone]

Honestly, even seeing the solution didn't make much sense to me. I had to explicitly read the breakdown of the pattern to even have a hope of following it.

And no player at the table I have is going to figure it out.

Oh I agree, mixing two different patterns together makes this incredibly difficult, and those two patterns aren't simple either. But I feel like it's at least giving you all the tools you need to figure it out. Should a DM want to put in a difficult puzzle to potentially skip a series of tough fights, this would fit the bill.

And this one is definitely the easiest to retool into an easier puzzle - change the pattern, or reduce the number of tiles you need to put back in place, or both.

Also, thanks for bothering to grab the alchemy symbols and copying that all out. That must've taken a bit of time.

[MaxWilson]

It's a common trope (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TranslationConvention) that obviously the characters aren't using the English language, but they are using something analogous which would have its own equivalent language puzzles.

The alternative is creating a fictive language and creating word games to play in that language (which probably would make your players roll their eyes at you so hard they'd do permanent damage), or not get to use any kind of word puzzles/puns/etc. (which would be too bad).

The other alternative is simply declaring that through some fluke of fantasy linguistics, the language in which the riddle is given just happens to correspond precisely to English (or whatever other language is spoken by everyone at the game table).

[PhoenixPhyre]

The other alternative is simply declaring that through some fluke of fantasy linguistics, the language in which the riddle is given just happens to correspond precisely to English (or whatever other language is spoken by everyone at the game table).

Using the color conventions from your signature

This is me-as-worldbuilder speaking here, but :smallfurious:. A DM doing that in anything but a complete "silly-romp" game (one where verisimilitude is already set aside from the beginning) would drop me permanently out of immersion and make me utterly lose all respect for that world. YMMV, but yeah. That's a hill I'm willing to die on. Translation conventions are fine (within reason), but forcing all riddles to be in <real-world language> (when they're actually all in different in-universe languages that don't even share a language family) is just...no. I can't make myself do it.

If there's a riddle in an ancient aelvar ruin, it's in an ancestor to gwerin (high-elven). If it's in a dwarven ruin, it's in dwarven. If it's in an old-human-empire ruin, it's in Old Imperial. None of which are even the translation-convention-mapping-partner for english--that's Common. And Common's only been around for a few hundred years in one small part of the world. And, most importantly, isn't English, even though it gets mapped onto that for aesthetics.

/rant

[Pex]

Using the color conventions from your signature

This is me-as-worldbuilder speaking here, but :smallfurious:. A DM doing that in anything but a complete "silly-romp" game (one where verisimilitude is already set aside from the beginning) would drop me permanently out of immersion and make me utterly lose all respect for that world. YMMV, but yeah. That's a hill I'm willing to die on. Translation conventions are fine (within reason), but forcing all riddles to be in <real-world language> (when they're actually all in different in-universe languages that don't even share a language family) is just...no. I can't make myself do it.

If there's a riddle in an ancient aelvar ruin, it's in an ancestor to gwerin (high-elven). If it's in a dwarven ruin, it's in dwarven. If it's in an old-human-empire ruin, it's in Old Imperial. None of which are even the translation-convention-mapping-partner for english--that's Common. And Common's only been around for a few hundred years in one small part of the world. And, most importantly, isn't English, even though it gets mapped onto that for aesthetics.

/rant

Speak, friend, and enter.

Riddles are for player fun, so it needs to be in a language the players understand. If no PC knows the language then you need to translate first, but the puzzle itself if it uses letters/words the players need to know it. Otherwise it's symbols even it represents letters in some ancient language, but in that case the symbols represent a pattern which is a different type of puzzle if similar.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Speak, friend, and enter.

Riddles are for player fun, so it needs to be in a language the players understand. If no PC knows the language then you need to translate first, but the puzzle itself if it uses letters/words the players need to know it. Otherwise it's symbols even it represents letters in some ancient language, but in that case the symbols represent a pattern which is a different type of puzzle if similar.

I just don't use word puzzles. I've never found one that actually works both in-game and as a game element at the same time. Symbol/pattern ones are ok, but I prefer them to not be a major thing.

I said I've only used a few puzzles in 5+ years now:

1) the first was in my first campaign. It was a "turn the statues to clear the way" type--a room full of statues that emitted directional walls of force. You could rotate them, and you had to do so to get through the room. They were on a time limit though, so no brute forcing it. Pretty simple. Happened in the abandoned temple of a goddess of tricks though.

2) the second was a pure OOC symbol puzzle. Konami code, but in rebus form (pup pup crown crown heft wight heft wight banana apple). Used as a comedy break. This one didn't even intend to work as an in-game puzzle.

3) the third was an elemental symbol lock on a chest. Press the elements in the right order, with a (translated) hint. Dead simple, they guessed it on the first try.

4) the last was a devotional puzzle, mainly in-universe. They already had the answers given, they just had to realize that they were the answers. 12 statues, each missing an object. 12 objects. Put the right one on the right statue. For someone coming in the right way, this one would have been only trial and error (with escalating penalties). Because it was designed as a memory aid/devotional act for people who already knew the answers. Not a puzzle per se. But they came in the back way (by design), into the temple chamber with the murals that explained the significance of each figure (ancient emperors in an emperor-worshiping cult). So really, it wasn't supposed to be a puzzle for the characters at all. But it took them a while to realize that it was that simple.

I've had some in other games that I played in. They sucked. All of them. Things that in-universe, a smart character would just know instantly were instead "tests for the player". Sucky ones. My scholar dwarf, knowledge cleric specializing in history, couldn't decipher a riddle in dwarven runes. Why? Because they were actually just transliterations of english characters and the words made sense only in english. That's sucky. Etc.

But that's personal preference.

[micahaphone]

So unless your name is Tolkein, don't ever use anything written in-universe!

[MaxWilson]

Using the color conventions from your signature

This is me-as-worldbuilder speaking here, but :smallfurious:. A DM doing that in anything but a complete "silly-romp" game (one where verisimilitude is already set aside from the beginning) would drop me permanently out of immersion and make me utterly lose all respect for that world. YMMV, but yeah. That's a hill I'm willing to die on. Translation conventions are fine (within reason), but forcing all riddles to be in <real-world language> (when they're actually all in different in-universe languages that don't even share a language family) is just...no. I can't make myself do it.

If there's a riddle in an ancient aelvar ruin, it's in an ancestor to gwerin (high-elven). If it's in a dwarven ruin, it's in dwarven. If it's in an old-human-empire ruin, it's in Old Imperial. None of which are even the translation-convention-mapping-partner for english--that's Common. And Common's only been around for a few hundred years in one small part of the world. And, most importantly, isn't English, even though it gets mapped onto that for aesthetics.

/rant

While I respect your purple, for the record I'm interested how that could break your sense of immersion when there's no way for you (at the time) to tell the difference between (1) "fluke of fantasy linguistics" and (2) "everyone on this planet is descended from English-speaking Earthlings". All you know is that somehow the puns and riddles in the game somehow make sense in English, and if you ask the DM he'll tell you that they're literally the same sounds/words. If it were me, the natural conclusion would be #2 (common origin), and only if that were somehow ruled out would it possibly start to affect my suspension of disbelief.

Maybe not even then. In an infinity of possible worlds, every possible coincidence will happen infinitely many times. Games can be expected to take place in worlds with coincidences which make things more convenient for both players and DM, e.g. very few D&D games take place in golden ages where everything is peaceful and safe and every investigative need is already being handled by large police organizations. The game world conveniently arranges itself to make PCs lives interesting but dangerous.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I respect your purple, for the record I'm interested how that could break your sense of immersion when there's no way for you (at the time) to tell the difference between (1) "fluke of fantasy linguistics" and (2) "everyone on this planet is descended from English-speaking Earthlings". All you know is that somehow the puns and riddles in the game somehow make sense in English, and if you ask the DM he'll tell you that they're literally the same sounds/words. If it were me, the natural conclusion would be #2 (common origin), and only if that were somehow ruled out would it possibly start to affect my suspension of disbelief.

Maybe not even then. In an infinity of possible worlds, every possible coincidence will happen infinitely many times. Games can be expected to take place in worlds with coincidences which make things more convenient for both players and DM, e.g. very few D&D games take place in golden ages where everything is peaceful and safe and every investigative need is already being handled by large police organizations. The game world conveniently arranges itself to make PCs lives interesting but dangerous.

Because D&D and the real world are disjoint. Saying that they're related requires too much suspension of disbelief--it breaks both sets of laws of physics entirely. And even if they were descended from a common ancestor, languages change over millennia. So something being identical to modern english is, for me, a far bridge too far. And there are many languages even on earth--why are the elves and the humans (on two different continents, who have never met) all speaking english?

And yes, there are coincidences. We don't need to manufacture more of them. Especially, since I have yet to see a single good word puzzle even if I take off my worldbuilding hat. They just don't work well IMO. YMMV of course.

[micahaphone]

I do dislike languages being inherently racial and not location based (well pre-tasha's, or default assumption). but even Tolkein assumed that you were reading lotr as a translated work to begin with, and even he didn't feel the need to make the translations rough when reading it.

[Willie the Duck]

The other alternative is simply declaring that through some fluke of fantasy linguistics, the language in which the riddle is given just happens to correspond precisely to English (or whatever other language is spoken by everyone at the game table).
Good point. I had dismissed that option out of hand as not going to live up to PP's desires, but worth bringing up for everyone else.


This is me-as-worldbuilder speaking here, but :smallfurious:. A DM doing that in anything but a complete "silly-romp" game (one where verisimilitude is already set aside from the beginning) would drop me permanently out of immersion and make me utterly lose all respect for that world. YMMV, but yeah. That's a hill I'm willing to die on. Translation conventions are fine (within reason), but forcing all riddles to be in <real-world language> (when they're actually all in different in-universe languages that don't even share a language family) is just...no. I can't make myself do it.
/rant
And that's certainly fine. Everyone has their own boundaries. For me, I can make it work by declaring the riddle in question to be an English-language analog to the puzzle the in-universe characters (who are using non-terrestrial languages) are seeing in their own language. Thus (again, for me) the verisimilitude is not broken because they aren't speaking English, solving an English-language puzzle, nor have a language with improbably English-similar words (or letters or whatever is needed to solve the puzzle), that's just what the players see to facilitate gameplay.


I just don't use word puzzles
There is always that option as well.

[samcifer]

Speak, friend, and enter.



"I'm not your friend, Guy"

[Chaosmancer]

Also, thanks for bothering to grab the alchemy symbols and copying that all out. That must've taken a bit of time.

I was trying to find the keyboard shortcuts and got lucky.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Using the color conventions from your signature

This is me-as-worldbuilder speaking here, but :smallfurious:. A DM doing that in anything but a complete "silly-romp" game (one where verisimilitude is already set aside from the beginning) would drop me permanently out of immersion and make me utterly lose all respect for that world. YMMV, but yeah. That's a hill I'm willing to die on. Translation conventions are fine (within reason), but forcing all riddles to be in <real-world language> (when they're actually all in different in-universe languages that don't even share a language family) is just...no. I can't make myself do it.

If there's a riddle in an ancient aelvar ruin, it's in an ancestor to gwerin (high-elven). If it's in a dwarven ruin, it's in dwarven. If it's in an old-human-empire ruin, it's in Old Imperial. None of which are even the translation-convention-mapping-partner for english--that's Common. And Common's only been around for a few hundred years in one small part of the world. And, most importantly, isn't English, even though it gets mapped onto that for aesthetics.

/rant

I agree with you friend, but I am lazy and no where near skilled enough to create multiple fantasy languages. It is a sacrifice for ease of play that I simply can't get around.



I just don't use word puzzles. I've never found one that actually works both in-game and as a game element at the same time. Symbol/pattern ones are ok, but I prefer them to not be a major thing.

I said I've only used a few puzzles in 5+ years now:

1) the first was in my first campaign. It was a "turn the statues to clear the way" type--a room full of statues that emitted directional walls of force. You could rotate them, and you had to do so to get through the room. They were on a time limit though, so no brute forcing it. Pretty simple. Happened in the abandoned temple of a goddess of tricks though.

2) the second was a pure OOC symbol puzzle. Konami code, but in rebus form (pup pup crown crown heft wight heft wight banana apple). Used as a comedy break. This one didn't even intend to work as an in-game puzzle.

3) the third was an elemental symbol lock on a chest. Press the elements in the right order, with a (translated) hint. Dead simple, they guessed it on the first try.

4) the last was a devotional puzzle, mainly in-universe. They already had the answers given, they just had to realize that they were the answers. 12 statues, each missing an object. 12 objects. Put the right one on the right statue. For someone coming in the right way, this one would have been only trial and error (with escalating penalties). Because it was designed as a memory aid/devotional act for people who already knew the answers. Not a puzzle per se. But they came in the back way (by design), into the temple chamber with the murals that explained the significance of each figure (ancient emperors in an emperor-worshiping cult). So really, it wasn't supposed to be a puzzle for the characters at all. But it took them a while to realize that it was that simple.

I've had some in other games that I played in. They sucked. All of them. Things that in-universe, a smart character would just know instantly were instead "tests for the player". Sucky ones. My scholar dwarf, knowledge cleric specializing in history, couldn't decipher a riddle in dwarven runes. Why? Because they were actually just transliterations of english characters and the words made sense only in english. That's sucky. Etc.

But that's personal preference.

I agree that most puzzles I've been forced to play were terrible. Like, legitimately hard to stomach. I had a con game once were the GM brought us children's puzzles and dropped them on the table and we had to take the pieces and solve the actual, literal puzzle in real-life to proceed.


That being said, I love your examples from 1 and 4, especially 4 feels like an excellent thing to steal.

....

*yoink*

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree with you friend, but I am lazy and no where near skilled enough to create multiple fantasy languages. It is a sacrifice for ease of play that I simply can't get around.


Yeah, neither am I. I solve my internal struggles by not using verbal puzzles at all. My response below explains why I don't think that's a loss.



I agree that most puzzles I've been forced to play were terrible. Like, legitimately hard to stomach. I had a con game once were the GM brought us children's puzzles and dropped them on the table and we had to take the pieces and solve the actual, literal puzzle in real-life to proceed.


That being said, I love your examples from 1 and 4, especially 4 feels like an excellent thing to steal.

....

*yoink*

Thanks! #1 would have worked better if I'd have planned it more carefully, but I was new and we were in a hurry (1 hour sessions...in 4e at that point. Ouch).

But yes. Part of my resistance to world-based workarounds is that I haven't found a single published verbal puzzle that was worth the table time to run, even ignoring those language-based issues. They're pretty uniformly crap. Obvious if you know the solution, agonizing if you don't. And entirely challenging the players, with only a fig leaf of in-universe justification.

And as far as Tolkien goes, there are a lot of things you can do in written fiction that you can't get away with well in a game environment. The "speak friend and enter" thing was there to show that the simple answers are usually best, that the "wise" often overthink things. Because Tolkien wanted to talk up the common man (vs the elites). And the hobbits were symbols of the common man and his wisdom. It's a running theme throughout the Lord of the Rings. So less a puzzle than a plot device. And frankly a weak one--changing the punctuation removes the ambiguity entirely. And that's an artifact of the english translation-convention. So Gandalf had to be holding the Idiot Ball there. Which is fine, because fiction. Not fine in a game setting.

Players should make decisions for their characters based on their character's knowledge and traits (or things they could plausibly know). Using OOC knowledge here goes against that. So if you're setting puzzles, you darn well better make it so that those super smart (or super focused) people can basically walk right through them. Because otherwise you're gluing the idiot ball into their hands and forcing purely OOC skill use. At least that's my opinion. And why I use puzzles so very rarely.

Edit: One useful (IMO) type of puzzle is the "reward for cleverness" type. You have a locked door (or some other barrier) with a riddle/puzzle with missing information (when you first encounter it). All the clues/answers are hidden in that dungeon--explore it and you'll eventually work out the answer. Or, if you're clever, you can guess/solve the riddle/puzzle up front, skipping portions of the dungeon. Basically the equivalent of "Guess the phrase" on Wheel of Fortune. This lets clever people "sequence break" without making solving the riddle OOC a necessity to progress. You can take the longer, but certain route or the quicker route.