Things in RPGs that you used to like but don’t anymore

[Cluedrew]

I consider that making characters in a story "act in the way that makes the 'best story' " to be something that ruined hundred thousands of stories by making the characters incoherent with themselves just because it was what the plot needed.

Every time this comes up (both people using this defence and people campaigning about it) people have confused the story and the plot. In my books there are three main building blocks to a story: plot (what happens), character (who it happens to) and setting (where it all happens). When people claim things are for the sake of a good story they usually mean they are sacrificing character or setting for plot. And sometimes this trade-off is worth it - or other things can be adjusted to make the not a trade-off - but it is a trade-off and people shouldn't forget that.

Saving the World (again)

Also Known As: Increasing the stakes does not make me care more. This is my main issue with a lot of module-style/linear campaigns because I don't care about the main plot. Now sometimes you can still have fun slotting your characters into this formula, which is why I put it under "I like other things more" group in my list.

[HumanFighter]

I'm kind of with Tanarii on this one. I prefer Theater of the Mind all the way. Like whenever I play D&D with my group, I always roll my eyes when the battelematt comes out, saying to myself,
"Well, I guess I know what we'll be doing for the next 2-4 Hours. This long fight. Ergh."
I like my RPG fights at tabletop to be quick, dirty, and deadly. Pulling out the matt for that every time is just annoying. Finding enough space, knocking over everyone's drinks while you slide the matt on the table, setting the pieces and miniatures. Feels like less of an RPG and more of like a board game now. Maybe I'm just playing the wrong games with the wrong people, I don't know.
As for immersion, I don't care one way or the other if the matt disturbs or enhances immersion, because I gave up on immersion years ago. You can try to get immersed with your character but there's no point because someone will inevitably bring OOC bias and drama into the game itself, targeting your character and singling him/her out because they want to get back at you for a perceived wrongdoing, or maybe they just don't like my face. I don't know. There's my two cents on the matter.
So sorry everyone's been ganging up on you Tanarii.

[Anonymouswizard]

Also Known As: Increasing the stakes does not make me care more. This is my main issue with a lot of module-style/linear campaigns because I don't care about the main plot. Now sometimes you can still have fun slotting your characters into this formula, which is why I put it under "I like other things more" group in my list.

Yeah, all of my favourite games have had city level stakes, partially because it's easier to connect the characters into it. The best villains to take down and epic confrontations weren't with the lich who wanted to destroy the world, they were with the corrupt official trying to turn the law against the party, or the local priest who'd been inciting the conflict for personal gain.

Saving the world is fine, but I'd rather have the world from a villain I care about. More often I'm more concerned with my character's arc of improving his reputation so the priesthood well let him join or whatever.

[Tanarii]

So sorry everyone's been ganging up on you Tanarii.

It's happened before, it'll happen again. /shrug I don't take it personally.

Besides, as usual if I look back I can see where I set myself up for it.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm kind of with Tanarii on this one. I prefer Theater of the Mind all the way. Like whenever I play D&D with my group, I always roll my eyes when the battelematt comes out, saying to myself,
"Well, I guess I know what we'll be doing for the next 2-4 Hours. This long fight. Ergh."
I like my RPG fights at tabletop to be quick, dirty, and deadly. Pulling out the matt for that every time is just annoying. Finding enough space, knocking over everyone's drinks while you slide the matt on the table, setting the pieces and miniatures. Feels like less of an RPG and more of like a board game now. Maybe I'm just playing the wrong games with the wrong people, I don't know.
As for immersion, I don't care one way or the other if the matt disturbs or enhances immersion, because I gave up on immersion years ago. You can try to get immersed with your character but there's no point because someone will inevitably bring OOC bias and drama into the game itself, targeting your character and singling him/her out because they want to get back at you for a perceived wrongdoing, or maybe they just don't like my face. I don't know. There's my two cents on the matter.
So sorry everyone's been ganging up on you Tanarii.

I don't think anyone is saying that personally finding maps and miniatures less immersive is bad or wrong.

Where people are objecting is in the claim that they're less immersive objectively, universally, or "by definition".


Personally, I like to get out a piece of paper and draw a rough map of major objects and obstacles, and where characters are, real quick, so that the game doesn't get lost in a series of "but I thought you said..."

[Drogorn]

I'm kind of with Tanarii on this one. I prefer Theater of the Mind all the way. Like whenever I play D&D with my group, I always roll my eyes when the battelematt comes out, saying to myself,
"Well, I guess I know what we'll be doing for the next 2-4 Hours. This long fight. Ergh."
I like my RPG fights at tabletop to be quick, dirty, and deadly.

So very much this. I'm utterly sick of battlemats, to the point that the next time my friends want to do a campaign using one I may just not join.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think maybe there's some gap in assumptions about what "maps" and "battlemats" refer to.

[Tanarii]

I think maybe there's some gap in assumptions about what "maps" and "battlemats" refer to.

There may be.

When I think "map" I think either a DM handout, a player drawn map to track where they've been, or ...

Personally, I like to get out a piece of paper and draw a rough map of major objects and obstacles, and where characters are, real quick, so that the game doesn't get lost in a series of "but I thought you said..."

When I think battlemat I think ...

Like whenever I play D&D with my group, I always roll my eyes when the battelematt comes out, saying to myself,
"Well, I guess I know what we'll be doing for the next 2-4 Hours. This long fight. Ergh."
I like my RPG fights at tabletop to be quick, dirty, and deadly. Pulling out the matt for that every time is just annoying. Finding enough space, knocking over everyone's drinks while you slide the matt on the table, setting the pieces and miniatures. Feels like less of an RPG and more of like a board game now. Maybe I'm just playing the wrong games with the wrong people, I don't know.

OTOH I keep the battlemat always on the table, we just put everything on top of it. Even with setup, I can usually knock a 5e battle with 5-6 players out in less than 45 minutes.

But compared to theatre of the mind with sketch references on a white board, battlemats take roughly an extra ten minutes due to setup and slower player turns, as they overthink their options more often.

It's been a while since I did straight theatre of the mind for anything but simple of combat, but I'd hazard a guess it was on par with battlemats time wise, and slower than TotM+diagrams because of clarification questions.

[Cluedrew]

"Well, I guess I know what we'll be doing for the next 2-4 Hours. This long fight. Ergh."

Yeah, I remember someone talking about how 5e sped up combat and they could finish an average fight in 45minutes and I was just thinking: I was looking for five. This would never happen (for several reasons) but I always have a vision of someone trying to spring a "deep" combat system on me and as they are pulling out the minis just looking at them and asking for the combat's DC. Impossible, but it gets the point across: Why spend so much more time on this than anything else? I guess because it is its own draw but I'm not into switching between two games back and forth.

It's happened before, it'll happen again. /shrug I don't take it personally.

That you do not. To an impressive extent. Anyways, I didn't want to say anything while things were heated but I think I have exactly two cents for this topic.

But really I think the issue is "Immersion is a Meaningless Phrase". There are so many things in a game you can be immersed in and ways to be immersed that its kind of like just saying gameplay. Except you don't even have to be playing. If I'm watching other players do a scene without my character I think I could be immersed in the game and the fiction layer but I'm not thinking about being in character at all.

I think maybe there's some gap in assumptions about what "maps" and "battlemats" refer to.

What is the gap? Or what would it be if its there?

[Tanarii]

But really I think the issue is "Immersion is a Meaningless Phrase"

I think after this thread I'm moving it into that category. 😂😂😂

[Max_Killjoy]

What is the gap? Or what would it be if its there?

That we start out talking about visual representation of what's going on, using maps of some sort, and some people picture quickly sketched and drawn on things to keep general positions and movement straight for everyone at the table, and other picture exacting measurements and plotting used to drive core mechanics.

[martixy]

I'm not sure I would qualify it as "love", but I used to be way more simulationist. At one point it just sort of clicked that's not how the game works. No TTRPG can do a good job at that. It's reductionist and abstract by its very nature. These days I view any successful simulationism as a happy and welcome accident.

Otherwise...
I still like complex systems and character building.
I still like saving the world plots. (Mixed with personal stories. I started that way and haven't changed. Think Avatar: The last airbender.)
Don't like Theater of the mind and like having a map. I may have aphantasia of indeterminate severity and definitely need visual aids for spatial reasoning.
Like high magic. Which is not at all incompatible with swords.
Rolling dice is fun, but gets old fast. If I need to roll more than 10 dice at the same time, I'm using a computer. There's no sense in wasting time into something that will strongly tend towards the mean anyway. 20+? Might as well multiply by the average and move on.
Never liked XP.

Symmetry between PCs and NPCs. I used to think it's important that they use the same rules, as otherwise it's not realistic. I've come to realize that trying to keep such symmetry is often more trouble than it's worth. Obviously it's going to depend on the system, but PCs and NPCs are always going to serve different purposes in the game and what works for one won't work for the other. Not to mention that it's not actually very realistic for everyone to learn and use the same abilities in the same way.

This one caught my eye.

I believe in symmetry. Just of a different kind.
I think an NPC with a character sheet should be able to do anything an NPC without a character sheet can.

A PC is just a character in the game controlled by a player that's not the DM.


P.S. This thread has once again turned to a question of semantics, as all long running threads on these boards tend to. It's honestly a fascinating study in effective communication.

[Batcathat]

This one caught my eye.

I believe in symmetry. Just of a different kind.
I think an NPC with a character sheet should be able to do anything an NPC without a character sheet can.

A PC is just a character in the game controlled by a player that's not the DM.

This sounds a lot like my opinion on the matter too. I don't mind if NPCs are built a different way than PCs, but I do mind if they can do things PCs explicitly can't (or the other way around). That is, if there's no in-universe explanation. It's okay if the Big Bad has some special ability because of their race or thanks to some dark ritual, but the PCs better be able to have the same ability if they're part of the same race or start sacrificing orphans to the Dark Lord or whatever.

[Morty]

This sounds a lot like my opinion on the matter too. I don't mind if NPCs are built a different way than PCs, but I do mind if they can do things PCs explicitly can't (or the other way around). That is, if there's no in-universe explanation. It's okay if the Big Bad has some special ability because of their race or thanks to some dark ritual, but the PCs better be able to have the same ability if they're part of the same race or start sacrificing orphans to the Dark Lord or whatever.

I see this brought up a lot, but in my experience, PCs have abilities unattainable to NPCs just as often, if not more so. NPC profiles in games with less symmetry tend to be slimmed down and simplified to keep things easier. And either way, it doesn't bother me. Abilities for PCs and NPCs have different needs and some things just don't work for both of them.

[noob]

I see this brought up a lot, but in my experience, PCs have abilities unattainable to NPCs just as often, if not more so. NPC profiles in games with less symmetry tend to be slimmed down and simplified to keep things easier. And either way, it doesn't bother me. Abilities for PCs and NPCs have different needs and some things just don't work for both of them.

But why would the adventurer not be able to sacrifice babies to heal their own wounds and become younger?
The demon lord that granted that boon to the bbeg would definitively have in their own best interest to grant it to that stronger adventurer that will probably work for them if given cool boons.
let us face it: the gm just does not like verisimilitude and allowing the adventurers to do the evil rituals the bbeg does. It is not a matter of "symmetry being odd" because the adventurer would be willing to act like a bbeg and to plot the downfall of civilisation in exchange for boons and justifications to kill babies.
As for adventurers abilities only it is odd too if the adventurer does X right after going to wizard school and that nobody else going to the same school gets that ability: you should at least be able to find some npcs with that ability in the school (even if it is a non 100% identical variant of the ability).

[Batcathat]

I see this brought up a lot, but in my experience, PCs have abilities unattainable to NPCs just as often, if not more so. NPC profiles in games with less symmetry tend to be slimmed down and simplified to keep things easier. And either way, it doesn't bother me. Abilities for PCs and NPCs have different needs and some things just don't work for both of them.

I don't like PCs having abilities NPCs can't possibly get either. It bothers me since the PC/NPC divide exists only from an OOC perspective and thus messes with my suspension of disbelief if it affects IC abilities. NPCs being simplied is fine, it's "NPC can't never ever do this, it's a PC ability" that I don't like.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't like PCs having abilities NPCs can't possibly get either. It bothers me since the PC/NPC divide exists only from an OOC perspective and thus messes with my suspension of disbelief if it affects IC abilities. NPCs being simplied is fine, it's "NPC can't never ever do this, it's a PC ability" that I don't like.

Same here.

If a thing is possible within the world/setting of the game or campaign, then it's possible, full stop. Without a very specific in world/setting reason supporting PC/NPC divides (not in character building, but in how they interact with the rest of the rules and what abilities they have access to), this is a hard-no factor when I evaluate game systems.

[noob]

Same here.

If a thing is possible within the world/setting of the game or campaign, then it's possible, full stop. Without a very specific in world/setting reason supporting PC/NPC divides (not in character building, but in how they interact with the rest of the rules and what abilities they have access to), this is a hard-no factor when I evaluate game systems.

Spoiler: do not read if you did not read "will save the world for gold"

Show

In will save the world for gold the setting officially had a "npc, adventurer divide" and a part of the plot in the story is that a specific npc became an adventurer and it started breaking the rules of the universe itself.

[Satinavian]

I see this brought up a lot, but in my experience, PCs have abilities unattainable to NPCs just as often, if not more so. NPC profiles in games with less symmetry tend to be slimmed down and simplified to keep things easier. And either way, it doesn't bother me. Abilities for PCs and NPCs have different needs and some things just don't work for both of them.

I see many slimmed down profiles even in games that don't have such a rule divide. It is just assumed that the stat block represents the likely relevant numbers and abilities of the NPC given their role, but certainly not all of them.

[Batcathat]

I see many slimmed down profiles even in games that don't have such a rule divide. It is just assumed that the stat block represents the likely relevant numbers and abilities of the NPC given their role, but certainly not all of them.

Just to be clear, I don't mind stuff like that. If there's no reason to assume an NPC will use skill X, I understand not putting it in the stat block. My issue is with NPCs not being able to use skill X at all, on account of being NPCs.

[Willie the Duck]

But why would the adventurer not be able to sacrifice babies to heal their own wounds and become younger?
The demon lord that granted that boon to the bbeg would definitively have in their own best interest to grant it to that stronger adventurer that will probably work for them if given cool boons.
let us face it: the gm just does not like verisimilitude and allowing the adventurers to do the evil rituals the bbeg does. It is not a matter of "symmetry being odd" because the adventurer would be willing to act like a bbeg and to plot the downfall of civilisation in exchange for boons and justifications to kill babies.

A DM should have a specific explanation for this, if it is something all sorts* of NPC BBEQ have done, but once a PC tries it, it fails. When it comes to rule sets, I'm a little more forgiving with them simply not having included a baby sacrificer class (some combination of 'we didn't know anyone would want one,' and, 'WoD/D&D3 tried that a few times, and those products have been near-universally panned.'). But yes, the GM had better be prepared for the PCs to say, 'ultimate power? Sign me up!'
*Because if exactly one BBEG has done so, I'm fine with the granting demon lord having not mass-produced the ability

Just to be clear, I don't mind stuff like that. If there's no reason to assume an NPC will use skill X, I understand not putting it in the stat block. My issue is with NPCs not being able to use skill X at all, on account of being NPCs.

Can you think of a specific example? Something beyond 'there are no NPCs in the NPC/Monster section who happen to have this.' and an actual prohibition-level thing?

[Max_Killjoy]

A DM should have a specific explanation for this, if it is something all sorts* of NPC BBEQ have done, but once a PC tries it, it fails. When it comes to rule sets, I'm a little more forgiving with them simply not having included a baby sacrificer class (some combination of 'we didn't know anyone would want one,' and, 'WoD/D&D3 tried that a few times, and those products have been near-universally panned.'). But yes, the GM had better be prepared for the PCs to say, 'ultimate power? Sign me up!'
*Because if exactly one BBEG has done so, I'm fine with the granting demon lord having not mass-produced the ability


Can you think of a specific example? Something beyond 'there are no NPCs in the NPC/Monster section who happen to have this.' and an actual prohibition-level thing?

There are a lot of systems now where NPCs are not just built using different rules, but also have divergent mechanics or lists of abilities.

For example, the game Sentinels of the Multiverse -- the PCs are heroic superhumans and have specific ability lists, while the NPCs are either villainous superhumans with entirely different lists of abilities, or built using entirely threadbare stat blocks, a single die compared to three for resolution, etc.

Or the games where the players do ALL the rolling, and all NPCs have things that the players roll against and the GM never ever picks up a single die.

[Telok]

Can you think of a specific example? Something beyond 'there are no NPCs in the NPC/Monster section who happen to have this.' and an actual prohibition-level thing?

Similar. Pazio's Starfinder game, npcs vs. pcs.

Npc: https://www.aonsrd.com/AlienDisplay....in&Family=None
Pc: https://www.aonsrd.com/Races.aspx?ItemName=Dragonkin

Resitances: npc has immunity to fire sleep and paralysis, pc has immunity to sleep a +2 vs paralysis and resist 5 fire.

Breath weapon: npc has a 9d6 ref16 for half with a 1d4 recharge, pc has a 1d6 + 1.5xLevel ref(10+con mod+half level) for half with a 1/rest recharge.

Flight: npc 120', pc 30' and at levels 1-4 they fall at the end of a move.

There's no way in the game for the pc race to get the npc abilities and no way for a rules legal npc to have the pc versions. Technically you supposedly could stat a pc character for use as an npc but you are explicitly not to do that. Part of their balancing is predicated by pcs and npcs having different offense/defense ratios and using a pc style npc breaks that.

[Lord Torath]

Can you think of a specific example? Something beyond 'there are no NPCs in the NPC/Monster section who happen to have this.' and an actual prohibition-level thing?

2E AD&D. Halflings in the Monstrous Manual get a +3 to hit with slings and bows. PC halflings in the PHB get +1 to hit with slings and thrown weapons. I think elves have a similar discrepancy.

[FilthyLucre]

Theatre of mind combat.

I get a lot of people like it - and I understand why - but for me and my player's it basically ruins the game. Are the two creatures within 15' of each other? I, as the DM, get to make that decision based on... caprice. So instead of being able to directly point at where things are position and in relation to each other, I'm having to just make up whether or not the PCs abilities work in such-and-such way.

IMHO, if one prefers theatre of mine combat I don't see a principled reason to have almost any rules whatsoever and just enjoy a session of collaborative story telling. It's just not for me/my group.

[Batcathat]

I get a lot of people like it - and I understand why - but for me and my player's it basically ruins the game. Are the two creatures within 15' of each other? I, as the DM, get to make that decision based on... caprice. So instead of being able to directly point at where things are position and in relation to each other, I'm having to just make up whether or not the PCs abilities work in such-and-such way.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would theater of mind automatically make combat arbitrary like this? Just because the GM can't point to a detailed map of the battlefield doesn't mean the combatants aren't in specific places in relation to each other. Sure, playing theater of mind probably means the players might have a harder time understanding exactly where everyone is in relation to each other and the GM has an easier time fudging things in one direction or another if they want to, but neither is a certainty.

[kyoryu]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why would theater of mind automatically make combat arbitrary like this? Just because the GM can't point to a detailed map of the battlefield doesn't mean the combatants aren't in specific places in relation to each other. Sure, playing theater of mind probably means the players might have a harder time understanding exactly where everyone is in relation to each other and the GM has an easier time fudging things in one direction or another if they want to, but neither is a certainty.

The trick is that a game relying on TotM combat shouldn't worry about that level of precision.

[Xervous]

Theatre of mind combat.

I get a lot of people like it - and I understand why - but for me and my player's it basically ruins the game. Are the two creatures within 15' of each other? I, as the DM, get to make that decision based on... caprice. So instead of being able to directly point at where things are position and in relation to each other, I'm having to just make up whether or not the PCs abilities work in such-and-such way.

IMHO, if one prefers theatre of mine combat I don't see a principled reason to have almost any rules whatsoever and just enjoy a session of collaborative story telling. It's just not for me/my group.

I used to be against it but I’ve seen the utility for brief scenes where combat initiates with trivial opponents. Just a step short of an auto battle option really.

[Batcathat]

The trick is that a game relying on TotM combat shouldn't worry about that level of precision.

Oh sure, I just mean that if the PCs have an ability with a 15' range, the GM should probably decide in advance what enemies are within that range. Nothing fancy, just something like "Bandit A, B and C are close to the party, bandits D and E are not". Otherwise, I could see FilthyLucre's point.

[FilthyLucre]

Oh sure, I just mean that if the PCs have an ability with a 15' range, the GM should probably decide in advance what enemies are within that range. Nothing fancy, just something like "Bandit A, B and C are close to the party, bandits D and E are not". Otherwise, I could see FilthyLucre's point.

It's not just an issue of range, but precision relation between two points/positions. My players don't want things to happen because I decide they happen, they want to plan their turns around definite, objective positions.