Unpopular D&D Opinions

[Mastikator]

Unless the hand takes over your mind and makes you believe you're actually the guy you took the hand off. That might be inconvenient.

It's an inconvenience in the same way that bringing in a new PC because the old one is dead/retired is an inconvenience. This is just a different way of losing my PC, which I'm OK with. I signed up for adventure, death is one possible outcome and it's one I'm willing to accept for my PC. Sitting at the table and not play the PC I wanted to play is not an acceptable outcome.

[Anonymouswizard]

So it's a gold tax then? It's going to require a lot of downtime too, which I may have had better plans for. But now my town time and gold is spent on this BS problem I didn't ask for. What's boring is now instead of fulfilling my plan for my character I have to waste time and energy on a hand.

However if I can just take a dead enemy's hand and magically attach it and call it a day then I don't see how that's any different from just casting regeneration. That's a quick and easy solution which then allows me to enact my real plans.

Considering that most of my characters are likely to be into one or more of the following: magic, science, mad science, magic science, mad magic; they'd probably prefer to wait for the prosthetic. Might even be interested in making it for yourself.

An idea is to have the fixes available and relatively easy, just not very convincing to access. So characters still have to deal with loosing, and hey their downtime , but can get their bits back within a day or two.

[Draconi Redfir]

However if I can just take a dead enemy's hand and magically attach it and call it a day then I don't see how that's any different from just casting regeneration. That's a quick and easy solution which then allows me to enact my real plans.

it's different because it's not just "Reset to default". Your character is actually changing because of the trauma, and the change could still be used for future storytelling potential. Depending on what kind of hand it was, you might even be able to talk to your DM about small changes you get because of it. if you're playing a human and the hand is an orc's, then maybe you get a small strength boost while loosing a bit of dexterity. or maybe it allows you to qualify for orcish exotic weapons or the like.


Character development is a major part of any story, watching the young hopeful with a positive outlook on life grow into the grizzled veteran who will do anything to make the war end. You just can't tell an interesting story if you don't let the story have an effect on your character. resetting yourself to default with no time, energy, or cost just doesn't allow the right growth or development, growing an entire new arm or fixing blindness should not be as trivial as plucking a blade of grass.

[dafrca]

Side Track for a moment: I love all the fun and interesting topics this thread has wondered through. So crazy.

Ok; I return you to the present topic at hand (yes I went there..... )

[georgie_leech]

it's different because it's not just "Reset to default". Your character is actually changing because of the trauma, and the change could still be used for future storytelling potential. Depending on what kind of hand it was, you might even be able to talk to your DM about small changes you get because of it. if you're playing a human and the hand is an orc's, then maybe you get a small strength boost while loosing a bit of dexterity. or maybe it allows you to qualify for orcish exotic weapons or the like.


Character development is a major part of any story, watching the young hopeful with a positive outlook on life grow into the grizzled veteran who will do anything to make the war end. You just can't tell an interesting story if you don't let the story have an effect on your character. resetting yourself to default with no time, energy, or cost just doesn't allow the right growth or development, growing an entire new arm or fixing blindness should not be as trivial as plucking a blade of grass.

Death is fixable with some time and diamonds in D&D. It's one thing to ask players to be on board with potential long term changes, it's another to ask them to ignore well known solutions. I think you might find more success with this type of story arc in something like WoD or other games with less of emphasis on steady and rapidly growing power.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Opinion:

The appropriate frame of reference for a D&D game (ie when deciding "is proposed action reasonable") is not the real world, at least for "modern" D&D[1]. Or even fantasy novels. It's a Hollywood action movie at minimum. The upper bound depends on the table and the situation, but "mid-range superhero movie" is probably a fair bet. Ie Guardians of the Galaxy, not Dr Strange (usually). People doing over-the-top things, but not "blow up the mountains with a missed sword strike" things. Generally. YMMV on that upper end. But reality and realism (and appeals to those) are just flat off the table. This is especially true when evaluating weapons and armor.

[1] By which I mean 4e and 5e for sure, 3e is possible. 2e and before...well...I have no opinions on that matter.

[Pex]

it's different because it's not just "Reset to default". Your character is actually changing because of the trauma, and the change could still be used for future storytelling potential. Depending on what kind of hand it was, you might even be able to talk to your DM about small changes you get because of it. if you're playing a human and the hand is an orc's, then maybe you get a small strength boost while loosing a bit of dexterity. or maybe it allows you to qualify for orcish exotic weapons or the like.


Character development is a major part of any story, watching the young hopeful with a positive outlook on life grow into the grizzled veteran who will do anything to make the war end. You just can't tell an interesting story if you don't let the story have an effect on your character. resetting yourself to default with no time, energy, or cost just doesn't allow the right growth or development, growing an entire new arm or fixing blindness should not be as trivial as plucking a blade of grass.

Character growth does not require mutilation. Character growth, aside from gaining levels and all that entails, is not required at all. A character may have the same personality and philosophies at 17th level as he did at 7th as he did at 1st with the only difference being the NPCs and bad guys he interacts with.

[InvisibleBison]

iCharacter development is a major part of any story, watching the young hopeful with a positive outlook on life grow into the grizzled veteran who will do anything to make the war end. You just can't tell an interesting story if you don't let the story have an effect on your character. resetting yourself to default with no time, energy, or cost just doesn't allow the right growth or development, growing an entire new arm or fixing blindness should not be as trivial as plucking a blade of grass.

"Telling an interesting story" and "playing D&D" are different things, though. If your goal is to have fun playing D&D, doing things that tell an interesting story will often be unproductive or actually counterproductive.

[Anonymouswizard]

Character growth does not require mutilation. Character growth, aside from gaining levels and all that entails, is not required at all. A character may have the same personality and philosophies at 17th level as he did at 7th as he did at 1st with the only difference being the NPCs and bad guys he interacts with.

Yeah, this is my experience. Character development is the exception rather than the rule. The most I've seen in practice is one of my characters changing which race they were prejudiced against due to inter-PC relations.

It's a nice bonus, but certainly not required. It'll be more likely in a system like Fate or Apocalypse World, but I suspect that even then many groups play it without any character development coming up.

[Draconi Redfir]

Character growth does not require mutilation.

that's true, but it does require consequences. If your AC is low, you'll get hit, so you invest in better armor. If your sword is broken, you spend gold to get it replaced, either directly, or by taking one of the swords you would have otherwise sold. If your will saves are low and you keep getting charmed, you look into things like cloaks of resistance or charm-resisting items. Something happens, there is a consequence, and the cause of the consequence is fixed or improved.

So i just don't understand why more severe consequences are treated with such triviality. Why is growing back an entire new hand treated as easier then buying a magic item? Why does "Permanent blindness" as a status effect even exist if someone can fix it with nothing more then a third level spell? a third level spell that has zero cost of any form. it's instantaneous, so there is no time cost. it's verbal and somatic, so there is no material cost. it's 3rd level, so there's barely an effort in getting a hand on it in the first place, the only time it would be expensive is during the first two levels of your character's lifetime, and even then it's low enough to be available on any wand, potion, or scroll you might come across.

Bringing back the dead at least has the cost of time and diamonds, but i can re-attach an entire severed limb by just holding it to the stump and chugging a cure light wounds potion? how does that work?

"Telling an interesting story" and "playing D&D" are different things, though. If your goal is to have fun playing D&D, doing things that tell an interesting story will often be unproductive or actually counterproductive.

Clearly we have very different ideas about what playing D&D is then. almost every D&D game i've played, seen, or heard about has been at it's core an interesting story. Do you just do combat encounter runs or what?

[icefractal]

The players i play with at least, have a tendency to want immediate solutions to every problem even when letting the problem sit would be more interesting. Lost an arm in combat? Regenerate spell! Quick! Blinded? Fix that right up! Stuck on a prison with limited access to hygiene? Clean everything up to a shine with Prestidigitation ASAP! Witch wants goods or services worth 1000gp to let you access her magic crystal? Just give her 1000gp!

Now I'm sorry but personally? that sounds really boring. and it IS really boring when it happens! It's not fun to overcome problems when they're not even allowed to BE problems in the first place!

There's a flipside to that though, and it's that being "the person who is able to fix problems" can also be part of a character's story / growth. And in that case "it should only be fixed by a quest, not direct PC actions" is kind of no-selling that.

Like, Regenerate is a pretty niche spell. Someone who prepares that is presumably pretty intent on being a healer who can deal with that kind of problem. Likewise, Prestidigitation is usually pretty cosmetic - it can define your personal style, but it seldom changes the actual course of events. Now there's an opportunity where it would be important, and we're not supposed to use it?

On the witch, I think that's just the split between "author stance" and "character stance" - while giving up something precious would be more dramatic, if I put myself in the character's shoes - I'd sure as hell rather pay $1000 than something like "my first happy memory".

TBF, this is an opinion thread, and no reason you can't have that one. Just giving some perspective on what the "boring" players might be thinking.

[InvisibleBison]

Clearly we have very different ideas about what playing D&D is then. almost every D&D game i've played, seen, or heard about has been at it's core an interesting story.

I think our disagreement is at least in part due to terminology, specifically "story". I've been using story to mean describing what happened in the game after the fact, not the plot of the adventure. Given this definition, having an interesting plot for your adventure is not the same as having an interesting story.

[Tanarii]

"Telling an interesting story" and "playing D&D" are different things, though. If your goal is to have fun playing D&D, doing things that tell an interesting story will often be unproductive or actually counterproductive.

Agreed. The goals of roleplaying games aren't necessarily related to telling an interesting story at all. Some storytelling games are, but that doesn't even necessarily hold true for many games billed as storytelling games, especially ones from e.g. the 80s.

[Quertus]

That one seems weird to me too, because IMX "player agency" correlates heavily with "fun".

Also given that I define Roleplaying as making in character decisions in the fantasy environment, IMX also correlates heavily heavily with "roleplaying". But that may be more a case of chicken and egg.

Lol, same.

One thing I've learned in my time with the playground, though, is that that isn't universal. Some people enjoy less sandboxy, more "abnegation" play.

I will, of course, expect to be able to make the decision to slay the dragon or let her eat the kidnapped prince, to choose not to follow the dictates of the Hobbit evil overlord, or to abandon my Quest for the Holey Quail.

If I know about the ogre outside of town, and that he's watching the western gate...and choose to go out the eastern gate hidden in a barrel of fish, I may well be displeased that the ogre is suddenly on the eastern road...but if we are none the wiser and the GM has planned a ogre/griffin/gibbering mouther encounter that will occur on the Old Towne Road while transiting from Nowhere Hamlet to Bigcityville, I have precisely zero issue with that encounter falling on us even if we chose New Towne Path instead of Old Towne Road.

An extreme definition of player agency (I control every facet of everything regarding my character, and my actions must always carry consequences unique to those choices, regardless of the benefit to the game as a whole) has been put forth as vital/most important. It is that kind of "agency" I mean when I say player agency is overrated...there are times when that degree of expectation on the part of the players is, to me, perhaps selfish (? - need better word here) and lessens the value of the experience for the group.

There are lines not to be crossed, there are lines that should only be crossed sometimes, and there are things that I will always cede to the experience, at least until I know that I cannot trust that GM to "play fair" with my agency...and that's not likely to lead to a continued experience. I think there's even a difference between player agency at the table and between sessions.

tl;dr: Quantum ogres are fine. Starting the story on the path to King Blobb's Mines even if we didn't play out the mission acceptance is fine. Destroying everything my character worked for on a whim, not fine. Making my character take actions demonstrably and directly opposed to my paradigm, not fine. Agency is important, but it isn't the most important thing in the game.

Hmmm… there's probably few who care more about agency than I do, and fewer still who are also vocal on the Playground.

There's… an animal training maxim that, if you don't want an animal to bite, you teach it not to… darn senility… open its mouth or something. If you don't want it to do "step X", you teach it not to do "step X-1". That way, even when it's being "bad", it still isn't performing the unwanted behavior.

In this regard, I can condone hitting GMs with a clue-by-four even when they aren't doing anything wrong… yet.

Now, if they're one of… 4 people I know who've actually demonstrated the wherewithal to comprehend absolute limits, and act like they're looking at a cortex bomb rather than a (verbal) clue-by-four, sure, such GMs can be dealt with at more precise definitions of agency and railroading. But most humans have predictably human flaws, and should be advised to remain a step (or two!) away from bad behavior; further if they do not themselves comprehend the concept or importance of, in this case, Agency.

In other words, while I may agree, I support those who push harder than you believe they should, because their methods will produce better results with most GMs than setting more "accurate" limits.

More to the point, although I condone the use of "in media res" (because it involves buy-in, and a clear "here's what characters are appropriate" hook), I do not perceive the cost of banning all Quantum Ogres to be definitively worth the effort of successfully explaining the difference to the dumbest, most ignorant, most clueless GM. So the simple, "just ban them all" seems the simplest solution.

Feel free to point out any way in which this is a dumb strategy that I may have missed. But, while I agree with your ivory tower definition that only some Quantum Ogres involve a reduction of Agency, in the field, I have no issue with those who simply oppose all Quantum Ogres.

As a broader point… I'd advocate for GMs to … Hmmm… comprehend the distinction between informed and uninformed choices, and to be capable of giving the players the information necessary to make meaningfully informed decisions, to make Quantum Ogres extinct that way.

Yeah, that's a matter of small group dynamics. The issue with railroad and sandbox being a spectrum, not an either or, is also a matter not well addressed by those loud voices who make all of the noise.

I try to use the term "sandboxy" now.

Bounded Accuracy sucks. A proper way to implement what Bounded Accuracy does would be to accept that E6 works and make a serious DMG section about how to play that.

People who want to be threatened by goblins should play levels 1-6, not turn the whole 1-20 into the first few levels stretched over the whole progression. I do not want to be threatened by an enemy less than half my level in CR in any serious way after the first 5 levels.

For me, it's more, "I don't want ancient dragons and Mephistopheles to get powned by beings that are still threatened by goblins".

"You got taken down by Superman? How lame. I just put big blue in the hospital with my trusty .22." (EDIT: "says random thug to Galactus") is how Bounded accuracy feels to me.

To Quertus: OK another attempted follow up that I hope will reach you. So I have been mulling it over and I still and not sure what is up with the AI, the emulator and the programmers, but I get the general idea that mechanics should give results similar to the intended fiction. But I think that a bit of fudge factor is fine. This is why D&D's official setting is not the Tippyverse. So what sort of magical threshold does 4e cross and how does one objectively measure it?

I've been working on a longer reply (hopefully most of it is saved).

And now you've given me a completely different perspective to consider. Or to integrate with my "map vs territory" dilemma.

But a quick except from my larger post: The player is the computer, the character is the AI / emulator that they are running. Normally, one would expect the world to be the test for the AI; however, here, I have reversed expectations: the amount of work required to make the AI pass a given world is the metric I'm using to judge the world.

Don't know if that helps or not; some day, senility and save willing, I'll finish and post that larger reply.

And, to answer your current question, the threshold 4e crosses is that none of the "programmers" (a double entendre, since many of the people I game with are fellow programmers, some of AI); ie, people I game with or online - have been able to hand me code (ie, a set of character experiences) that makes the AI pass the "4e" test (ie, behave in character as their player does when they break character and "play the game"). No one has been able to do the world building necessary to make a character that makes 4e make sense.

(Which… you'd need to understand my "Bounded accuracy code" example before that will likely make much sense to you. Hopefully, more detail on that will be part of that larger post.)

Clear as mud?

[OldTrees1]

And, to answer your current question, the threshold 4e crosses is that none of the "programmers" (a double entendre, since many of the people I game with are fellow programmers, some of AI); ie, people I game with or online - have been able to hand me code (ie, a set of character experiences) that makes the AI pass the "4e" test (ie, behave in character as their player does when they break character and "play the game"). No one has been able to do the world building necessary to make a character that makes 4e make sense.

Clear as mud?

Clear as glass.

In my experience: hypothetical people I have imagined have handed me code that makes the AI pass the "4e" test within the verisimilitude tolerance threshold they set in their config file. I fully expect a random person in the 4E subforum would do likewise. As a result I still consider 4E as an RPG.

I can understand the distinction you are making. I think labeling that threshold as "RPG vs not RPG" is clear as mud (hence why it took several posts to clear it up).

[Pex]

that's true, but it does require consequences. If your AC is low, you'll get hit, so you invest in better armor. If your sword is broken, you spend gold to get it replaced, either directly, or by taking one of the swords you would have otherwise sold. If your will saves are low and you keep getting charmed, you look into things like cloaks of resistance or charm-resisting items. Something happens, there is a consequence, and the cause of the consequence is fixed or improved.

So i just don't understand why more severe consequences are treated with such triviality. Why is growing back an entire new hand treated as easier then buying a magic item? Why does "Permanent blindness" as a status effect even exist if someone can fix it with nothing more then a third level spell? a third level spell that has zero cost of any form. it's instantaneous, so there is no time cost. it's verbal and somatic, so there is no material cost. it's 3rd level, so there's barely an effort in getting a hand on it in the first place, the only time it would be expensive is during the first two levels of your character's lifetime, and even then it's low enough to be available on any wand, potion, or scroll you might come across.

Bringing back the dead at least has the cost of time and diamonds, but i can re-attach an entire severed limb by just holding it to the stump and chugging a cure light wounds potion? how does that work?

Blame the rules for making it that way. Whether intentional or side effect, it also avoids death spirals and power spirals. The more long term to permanent penalties you apply to a character, the more penalties the character will get because he can't defend himself or otherwise influence the game around him; hence blindness cannot be permanent. Likewise the more permanent power a PC gets the more powerful the DM needs to make the challenges until a breaking point ruins the game to unplayability. Different DMs have different tolerance levels of power. 3E went up the wazoo. 5E lowered the power curve, but there is still a curve. Therefore adding permanent extra power, such as getting and using magic items, is given difficulty. D&D is first and foremost a game. It needs to be playable before you throw in all the drama you're seeking. If there is a conflict between rules and drama D&D chose to put the rules first. Except for skill use, dagnammit.

Edit: Cure Wounds does not reattach limbs. Blame the DM for exaggerating injuries. D&D is not a combat simulator. Whatever it was in its Chainmail days, it is not that now. There are other game systems where mutilations from combat are a thing with rules how to handle them for long term effects. I don't know what those systems are, but I'm guessing it's likely they exist. D&D is not that type of game. It is fantasy. A DM can certainly run a niche campaign, possibly make it work, but D&D is not wrong for not doing a niche it was not designed for perfectly. The ogre does not sever your arm when scoring a critical hit against you.

[Cluedrew]

I think our disagreement is at least in part due to terminology, specifically "story". I've been using story to mean describing what happened in the game after the fact, not the plot of the adventure. Given this definition, having an interesting plot for your adventure is not the same as having an interesting story.

I've never quite been able to wrap my head around the difference though. I mean I can name a lot of differences between the stereotypical novel writing experience, but the important one people seem to focus seems to have the improvisational nature at the difference. (As opposed to the collaborative nature, or the role of mechanics.) And let me tell you, I have done some very improvisational storytelling over the years and I don't really get what difference people are pointing at.

I've been working on a longer reply (hopefully most of it is saved). [...] Or to integrate with my "map vs territory" dilemma.

There might be something in the territory vs. map idea. It connects to the fudge factor. The rules give me a map and I have to figure it out what the territory underneath. To me you have an overly literal reading of the map - as if you thought there were cliffs at each elevation line - and so of course you are ending up with some otherworldly landscape underneath.

And, to answer your current question, the threshold 4e crosses is that none of the "programmers" (a double entendre, since many of the people I game with are fellow programmers, some of AI); ie, people I game with or online - have been able to hand me code (ie, a set of character experiences) that makes the AI pass the "4e" test (ie, behave in character as their player does when they break character and "play the game"). No one has been able to do the world building necessary to make a character that makes 4e make sense.

Clear as mud?

Clear as glass. [...] I can understand the distinction you are making. I think labeling that threshold as "RPG vs not RPG" is clear as mud (hence why it took several posts to clear it up).

You see I think I get it as well, but I keep getting completely different results from the test. I can believe Quertus and friends found D&D 4e effectively unworkable. But I didn't. So that threshold just isn't in the same place as it is for me as it is for them. Hence why I have been going on about subjectivity because this seems heavily subjective if I am at all understanding how we are supposed to be measuring this.

[Mastikator]

it's different because it's not just "Reset to default". Your character is actually changing because of the trauma, and the change could still be used for future storytelling potential. Depending on what kind of hand it was, you might even be able to talk to your DM about small changes you get because of it. if you're playing a human and the hand is an orc's, then maybe you get a small strength boost while loosing a bit of dexterity. or maybe it allows you to qualify for orcish exotic weapons or the like.


Character development is a major part of any story, watching the young hopeful with a positive outlook on life grow into the grizzled veteran who will do anything to make the war end. You just can't tell an interesting story if you don't let the story have an effect on your character. resetting yourself to default with no time, energy, or cost just doesn't allow the right growth or development, growing an entire new arm or fixing blindness should not be as trivial as plucking a blade of grass.

If I did that in a game it would be a fun war story, not a tragic point that leads to trauma and character change. If I want to change the character I'll plan it ahead of time and move there slowly and talk to the DM about it. I dislike when it's forced on me and I have every right to resist it.

[Satinavian]

I've never quite been able to wrap my head around the difference though. I mean I can name a lot of differences between the stereotypical novel writing experience, but the important one people seem to focus seems to have the improvisational nature at the difference. (As opposed to the collaborative nature, or the role of mechanics.) And let me tell you, I have done some very improvisational storytelling over the years and I don't really get what difference people are pointing at.

For me it is about things like dramatic tension, story arcs, pacing, buildup...

There was once a campaign that slowly build up to some big culmination, some high risk, high reard, all-or-nothing maneuver. And then the players just said "nah, too risky. Lets just give up without really risking it and aim for the safe outcome where everyone is unhappy but, well, safe". In a story focused game that would not had happened. You wouldn't have opted to end all the tension in a predicatble, boring and unsatisfying way just because your protagonists didn't have the courage. But at the same time this messy resolution felt far more real and believable. Because real people usually don't get into high tension scenarios where everything is at risk if they can halp it, they do often opt for the safe, predictable and boring way.

[Draconi Redfir]

If I did that in a game it would be a fun war story, not a tragic point that leads to trauma and character change. If I want to change the character I'll plan it ahead of time and move there slowly and talk to the DM about it. I dislike when it's forced on me and I have every right to resist it.

Maybe look into taking some Improv classes or something sometime then. The ability to go "Yes, and..." at anything and really roll with the punches has great storytelling potential.


I didn't go into my last campaign planning on my character having a kid. But then i ****ed up, i faced a consequence, i rolled with it, and the DM incorporated it into the story of the campaign. There were multiple paths i could take on what to do with the kid, a potential inheritance from the kid's other parent that i could have taken at the price of exposing the initial hookup, and in the end my character wound up in likely a much more interesting place then they would have ended up otherwise with a new character on the backline for a campaign taking place years into the future.

If i hadn't rolled with the punches, my character probably would have gone back to living in the streets and performing for money, maybe an upgrade to a house with one small shop to their name if they played their cards right. Now though because of an unexpected twist and a lot of "Yes and...", my character joined a cult, sings lullabies to an elder god once a month to keep it asleep and prevent it from destroying the world, and has a kid that I'm already looking forward to playing in a future campaign sometime down the line, a character I never would have planned on making otherwise.

[Quertus]

Clear as glass.

In my experience: hypothetical people I have imagined have handed me code that makes the AI pass the "4e" test within the verisimilitude tolerance threshold they set in their config file. I fully expect a random person in the 4E subforum would do likewise. As a result I still consider 4E as an RPG.

I can understand the distinction you are making. I think labeling that threshold as "RPG vs not RPG" is clear as mud (hence why it took several posts to clear it up).

Haha. Nice try, but no. I've imagined GMs who can play the game "right", but IRL, they always have oh so human failings. Or people imagined that the infinite crit fisher wasn't infinite, because they imagined math worked a way it doesn't.

Just because you can imagine a thing, doesn't make it fact.

There might be something in the territory vs. map idea. It connects to the fudge factor. The rules give me a map and I have to figure it out what the territory underneath. To me you have an overly literal reading of the map - as if you thought there were cliffs at each elevation line - and so of course you are ending up with some otherworldly landscape underneath.

You see I think I get it as well, but I keep getting completely different results from the test. I can believe Quertus and friends found D&D 4e effectively unworkable. But I didn't. So that threshold just isn't in the same place as it is for me as it is for them. Hence why I have been going on about subjectivity because this seems heavily subjective if I am at all understanding how we are supposed to be measuring this.

Maybe it'd help if I said that, in order to convince me that 4e was an RPG, you'd need to hand me a territory that matches the map.

Because, otherwise, by definition, you have to stop role-playing when you engage the rules at the points / in the areas where they differ.

Now, only a Sith Lord would deal in such absolutes, but that should absolutely (heh) tell you something about the shape of this piece of the elephant.

(In reality, such a territory is neither necessary nor sufficient, but it is very much in the right direction, and much simpler to discuss than the Truth. It's "the map" of this piece of the elephant, if you will.)

[Tanarii]

I've never quite been able to wrap my head around the difference though. I mean I can name a lot of differences between the stereotypical novel writing experience, but the important one people seem to focus seems to have the improvisational nature at the difference. (As opposed to the collaborative nature, or the role of mechanics.) And let me tell you, I have done some very improvisational storytelling over the years and I don't really get what difference people are pointing at.

Maybe look into taking some Improv classes or something sometime then. The ability to go "Yes, and..." at anything and really roll with the punches has great storytelling potential.

Improv storytelling is not the same thing as improv acting is not the same thing as roleplaying / running or playing a roleplaying game.

There are significant differences, starting with the fact that you're (hopefully) playing a character or running a coherent fantasy world for the characters to interact with, not creating a story or trying to entertaining an audience.

[Xervous]

Maybe look into taking some Improv classes or something sometime then. The ability to go "Yes, and..." at anything and really roll with the punches has great storytelling potential.

The point of disconnect is that not everyone is showing up to tabletop for storytelling. If a player is showing up expecting verisimilitude and I layer on tropes and narrative structures to make a good story in spite of what he chooses to do then he’s going to be displeased. If my pitch of the game made it seem to him that it would be a living world campaign and it turns out to be storytelling time he’s entitled to $&@#%. Show up for the promise of a module and it’s a sandbox? Etc.

D&D is not by default about storytelling and I would not blink an eye at people calling BS on coerced narrative structuring if there wasn’t advance warning.

[ahyangyi]

Why does "Permanent blindness" as a status effect even exist if someone can fix it with nothing more then a third level spell?

Well, the same system allows one to inflict a permanent blindness with a second level spell.

https://www.aonprd.com/SpellDisplay....dness/Deafness

Think about it, that basically means that every medium-sized town in Golarion has a spellcaster or two that can inflict that status. It's not uncommon or anything. If you want a plot device to enforce the players to find some McGuffin to cure a blindness, perhaps you should use a rarer effect.

The "permanent" status in the D&D 3r/Pathfinder 1e is a misnomer. It's not supposed to always be difficult to get rid of. It just means "the effect doesn't have a duration".

And it belongs to a family of effects called "curse". Most curses behave this way: they are permanent, they can't be dispelled, but they can be cured.

[kyoryu]

Maybe it'd help if I said that, in order to convince me that 4e was an RPG, you'd need to hand me a territory that matches the map.

The problem here is the objectivity and precision you're talking about.

For me, martial dailies were never a problem. Having played goalie in hockey, the idea that there were certain moves that I could pull of once and then wouldn't have the capacity? That matched reality really well. At least as well as anything in other versions of D&D (specifically HP).

It's not an exact match, but it's close enough that it's reasonable.

Improv storytelling is not the same thing as improv acting is not the same thing as roleplaying / running or playing a roleplaying game.

There are significant differences, starting with the fact that you're (hopefully) playing a character or running a coherent fantasy world for the characters to interact with, not creating a story or trying to entertaining an audience.

No, they're not the same. But there are often tools/techniques that crossover. You need to examine them critically, though. I do find those tools are much more useful GM-side than player-side.

[Draconi Redfir]

The point of disconnect is that not everyone is showing up to tabletop for storytelling. If a player is showing up expecting verisimilitude and I layer on tropes and narrative structures to make a good story in spite of what he chooses to do then he’s going to be displeased. If my pitch of the game made it seem to him that it would be a living world campaign and it turns out to be storytelling time he’s entitled to $&@#%. Show up for the promise of a module and it’s a sandbox? Etc.

D&D is not by default about storytelling and I would not blink an eye at people calling BS on coerced narrative structuring if there wasn’t advance warning.

Okay but you're talking about being a DM. I'm talking about being a Player. If you show up to a tabletop game and you want combatcombatcombat then join a game that's all about combat. But if you join a game that's about story and plot, and the DM gives you an opportunity to add and expand to that, the last thing you should do is push it away. Not only is it rude but it's comparatively boring compared to what could have been. Lord of the Rings but where Frodo doesn't volunteer to take the ring to Mordor and just goes home would be a really boring story, especially since he's the main protagonist and has been the primary focus of the story until that point and likely would be afterwards.

And no one is talking about tropes and narrative structures? I'm talking about taking an opportunity when it's presented to you, rather then closing yourself off and rejecting everything that happens.

playing a character or running a coherent fantasy world for the characters to interact with, not creating a story or trying to entertaining an audience.

Unpopular opinion: Other players / the DM at a game and "an audience" is the same thing.

You're in a game. you got one player who has a character who interacts with everyone, responds to everyone's questions, talks to people, asks questions, and takes part in the story of the campaign.

There is another player who has a character who is always sulking in a corner staring at everyone else, and every time they're asked a question or asked to get involved in the story in some way, they just respond with "I stand in the darkest corner and glare at everyone else in the room."


Which character are you going to find more interesting and more engaging to play with?

[MoiMagnus]

There are significant differences, starting with the fact that you're (hopefully) playing a character or running a coherent fantasy world for the characters to interact with, not creating a story or trying to entertaining an audience.

Improv theatre is quite wide, and at least where I practiced it, the first audience is yourself & the other actors (most improvs are not made for a public), and entertainment is not just "it's funny" (especially if you want to make a single improv of 30min-45min which remains interesting for the whole duration, you probably want some structure, some character evolution, some serious subjects treated realistically, etc).

What remains true is that your "personal interest" as an actor (making the improv more interesting to everyone) is fundamentally disjoint from the "personal interest" of the character you interpret (which is "winning"). When sequencing multiple scenes, you also have a fundamentally different set of knowledge (you've seen/heard things the character didn't), which you can use for example to build dramatic irony.

A lot of that stuff if very similar to what happen in RPGs. And I can totally understand peoples who approach TTRPGs with a point of view similar to Improv (and hence fundamentally disagree with "The Angry GM" opinion that player/character separation is evil), as I myself tend to go in that direction too (which is only counterbalanced by some "boardgaming" tendencies).

[kyoryu]

Unpopular opinion: Other players / the DM at a game and "an audience" is the same thing.

You're in a game. you got one player who has a character who interacts with everyone, responds to everyone's questions, talks to people, asks questions, and takes part in the story of the campaign.

There is another player who has a character who is always sulking in a corner staring at everyone else, and every time they're asked a question or asked to get involved in the story in some way, they just respond with "I stand in the darkest corner and glare at everyone else in the room."

Which character are you going to find more interesting and more engaging to play with?

I think "audience" is an aspect of everybody at the table, but it's not the totality of it.

Improv theatre is quite wide, and at least where I practiced it, the first audience is yourself & the other actors (most improvs are not made for a public), and entertainment is not just "it's funny" (especially if you want to make a single improv of 30min-45min which remains interesting for the whole duration, you probably want some structure, some character evolution, some serious subjects treated realistically, etc).

What remains true is that your "personal interest" as an actor (making the improv more interesting to everyone) is fundamentally disjoint from the "personal interest" of the character you interpret (which is "winning"). When sequencing multiple scenes, you also have a fundamentally different set of knowledge (you've seen/heard things the character didn't), which you can use for example to build dramatic irony.

A lot of that stuff if very similar to what happen in RPGs. And I can totally understand peoples who approach TTRPGs with a point of view similar to Improv (and hence fundamentally disagree with "The Angry GM" opinion that player/character separation is evil), as I myself tend to go in that direction too (which is only counterbalanced by some "boardgaming" tendencies).

I generally agree, but I also think there's a "middle ground" where the GM can use a lot of improv-related techniques, while the players stay mostly in character-head-space.

I personally generally get annoyed when people start doing things "that would make a better story." Most good stories, to me, are when people pursue their goals in relatively rational ways, and just have conflicting goals with others. Even most "good for the story" type things in actual movies can be viewed as pursuing a goal of some sort - Rocket steals the energy source in GotG2 because he has goals like "don't let stuffy people insult you and get away with it".

(Side note: Some of the original Braunstein roleplaying games were set up so that the individual PCs got points for achieving goals that were directly related to them. I think this would be an interesting area of rules exploration for a less party-based game)

[MoiMagnus]

I personally generally get annoyed when people start doing things "that would make a better story." Most good stories, to me, are when people pursue their goals in relatively rational ways, and just have conflicting goals with others. Even most "good for the story" type things in actual movies can be viewed as pursuing a goal of some sort - Rocket steals the energy source in GotG2 because he has goals like "don't let stuffy people insult you and get away with it".

To be fair, the same is true in Improv as soon as you leave "short Improvs" (where you don't have the time to set up consistent characters). It's significantly better to set up a character on a track where they will rationally make choices that will lead to an interesting story, rather than to break the character mid-Improv to try to reproduce the "perfect scene you think you have in your head".

[Telok]

For me, martial dailies were never a problem. Having played goalie in hockey, the idea that there were certain moves that I could pull of once and then wouldn't have the capacity? That matched reality really well.

Not for me, but I came to it from epee, kendo, and a bit of sport shooting. In epee & kendo there were things you'd (properly) try once against an opponent. Some people might try such moves more than once, other might fall for them more than once, but generally you stuck to once per opponent. And of course none of it mapped to anything but melee. The whole excuse about perfect opportunities was completely unbelievable. You fight 30 orcs a day for two weeks and expect me to believe that exactly one a day lets their guard down so I can hit them somewhat harder than usual but that you get to choose which orc it is?