Unpopular D&D Opinions

[kyoryu]

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?

Yeah, I think "perfect opportunities" is a less good explanation (you can't force those, generally, or if you can it's more of a once-per-opponent thing) than "stress on the body" and the like.

Which is still imperfect, but worked well enough for me.

Again, my threshold is basically "does this map to my perceptions of reality worse than hit points?" Saying something categorical like "4e is not a roleplaying game because...." doesn't work for me so long as the thing it's being denied for is less of an issue than other things that are accepted in things that are considered roleplaying games.

Note that's based on my perceptions as well, and I fully accept others have different experience and perceptions.

IOW, let's look at two things:

1) As a Fighter, once I"ve done my super spinny move, I can't do it until I either rest a little bit, or overnight.
2) As a reasonably experienced fighter, I can walk straight into a crossbow shot with zero risk. I can walk across lava with zero risk, provided I don't do it for too long. I can survive falls from hundreds of feet.

Objectively, neither of those precisely match to the real-world. I have a hard time saying that the difference between the game mechanics and the real world is greater for the first than the second.

Subjectively, people have internalized the latter, and the former represents things that have not been part of D&D and so people may be more conscious of them and find them more disorienting. So I have zero problem with people saying "yeah, 4e takes me out of the game." I do push back a bit further when they start saying things like, objectively, 4e is "not a roleplaying game".

If you accept the "physics are different" argument, then I think it's equally applicable.

I do think there's an interesting argument about some mechanics which require out-of-game knowledge, like "you can use an ability once per session". Characters don't know about sessions. But "I can use this ability once per day" is knowable and testable - it requires no knowledge from "outside of the model", even if we don't understand why.

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".

Sure. I'm also more tolerant of that kind of stuff (for my preferred style) when it's done at character creation/between sessions/etc., rather than at the moment-to-moment level.

Like, in Fate terms, set up aspects to push your character in interesting ways... but at the table, pursue your interests as defined.

[Xervous]

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.

And there are more game types beyond combatXXX and storytelling. My main point is that the types of high impact opportunities are outlined in advance, that people know what sorts of things are relevant and on the table. Most systems imply a baseline reference point. D&D the blindness is a spell solution. Shadowrun limb loss is not explicit in some editions, but the genre always has it front and center with the cyber and bioware. A lost limb in something running along the lines of vampire might be a trivial solution but with compelling character consequences. A lost limb in Paranoia is quite fortunate when compared to the typical fate of troubleshooters.

Murderhobo orphans are the classic response from players who don’t want the character’s relatives to be acceptable targets for events. Given the assurance in advance that the character’s family is safe by default those players will be more inclined to fill out that portion of backstory. They just want it as a cosmetic, it’s not what they want the game to be about. It may make for a more interesting turn of events from one’s perspective, but that’s not a universal criteria for enjoyment that also applies to the other players.

Engaging with something like LotR, Frodo’s player would know if the game was running on narrative (he has a chance because it would make a good story) vs living world (he’s a low level hobbit who will get chewed up by the iterative probability inherent to adventuring) or any of a variety of other presentations. The player of Frodo would be dooming the character in the latter case as there are numerous scenes where the risk of death was high, yet we only saw this outlier timeline branch where the hobbits rolled 90th percentile for the high stakes checks.

If the game premise assumes characters won’t die or lose relevance and instead focuses on their outlooks, emotions and relations then Frodo’s player is happy to take the quest. Mind warping ring? Stress of being far from home and hunted by all manner of terrors? The elf and the dwarf dislike each other but have to work together? That’s all fuel for what the game is aiming to highlight and develop.

Frodo going blind in the living world case is a step towards the grave. The player wanted to focus on interacting with the world and coming to understand their character’s place in it by how the world reacts to the character’s actions. The player feels it’s an obstacle to be removed to get back to the typical desired interactions.

Frodo going blind in a narrative structure would be a different matter. How does this affect his relationship with Sam and Sméagol, who he now must trust as his eyes? What will this mean for the ring’s allure - could it lend him a semblance of vision? Will he end up confiding more in Sam so the story of his travels can be written?

In the living world case a choice between Captured by Orcs and Going Blind isn’t a happy choice at all, both threatening to cut short the character’s interaction opportunities. For the narrative world both offer interesting complications without the threat of losing the character in part or in whole because the structure provides assurances against that.

[kyoryu]

Phrased as an unpopular opinion: Hit points are less immersion breaking/etc than encounter/daily abilities in 4e.

[Talakeal]

Phrased as an unpopular opinion: Hit points are less immersion breaking/etc than encounter/daily abilities in 4e.

Do you mean more?

[Tanarii]

Phrased as an unpopular opinion: Hit points are less immersion breaking/etc than encounter/daily abilities in 4e.

I feel like that's the popular opinion in many parts.

[OldTrees1]

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.

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.)

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.

Why is handing you a group (Cluedrew as an example) that found the territory matches the map not sufficient evidence? If that group and you disagree in your evaluation of whether the territory matches the map, is it an RPG?

By labeling something "an RPG" or "not an RPG" are you describing something about the RPG or something about Quertus' evaluation of the RPG independent of everyone else's evaluations? If this is a shorthand for "Does Quertus know of a territory that matches this map under Quertus's evaluation", then I think using "an RPG" vs "not an RPG" is clear as mud.

[kyoryu]

Do you mean more?

I feel like that's the popular opinion in many parts.

Yes, I mean more. Sorry!

[Mordar]

Daredevil is a mutant born with functionally superior vision and doesn't suffer because of being blinded. He had no reason to address it. Everything you listed for the PCs is a penalty or problem and of course they're going to try to address it as quickly as possible through the most direct means. They're things that instantly become priorities, unless for some reason there is an overwhelming greater priority already in place, like a doomsday clock ticking.

First thing: Did they change Daredevil?!? Or just using "mutant" as stand in for someone with super-powers?

Second thing: The underlying issue, here, I think is mismatch of resource scales. D&D PCs rapidly have massive piles of money and no use for them. They can buy most anything they want and are walking examples of hyperinflationary pressure. So how do you get them to need to "buy" a scarce resource without just flinging gold at it? The witch always needs to require a special MacGuffin that can't be ordered from Amazon. The proliferation of conditions and magic that reverses them means conditions can seldom persist (in many games) because of an expectation of perfect-shape characters at each adventure and functionally limitless resources. Once the door was opened for fee-for-service magic (items, healing, condition removal) and it was on the same currency as buying food/armor/castles this seems the natural conclusion.

New thing/opinion:

Someone several pages ago said something like: "Sometimes people want to just turn their brains off and play a game."

D&D (most RPGs, potentially even more) is not for them at that time. If you're not interested in actively investing in a thinking-based game like most RPGs, you shouldn't be playing one. Playstation, Descent, MMOs, freaking Candyland are all out there. Don't degrade the RPG experience because what you want to play isn't really an RPG.

I mean really...would we put up with people playing 3x3 if they "just wanted to turn off their bodies and play a game"?

- M

[Xervous]

New thing/opinion:

Someone several pages ago said something like: "Sometimes people want to just turn their brains off and play a game."

D&D (most RPGs, potentially even more) is not for them at that time. If you're not interested in actively investing in a thinking-based game like most RPGs, you shouldn't be playing one. Playstation, Descent, MMOs, freaking Candyland are all out there. Don't degrade the RPG experience because what you want to play isn't really an RPG.

I mean really...would we put up with people playing 3x3 if they "just wanted to turn off their bodies and play a game"?

- M

Flipping this around, does it also apply to RPG scenarios where the player’s input has relatively little effect on outcomes?

[Tanarii]

The proliferation of conditions and magic that reverses them means conditions can seldom persist (in many games) because of an expectation of perfect-shape characters at each adventure and functionally limitless resources.

Yeah, that's a problem if for some reason players can't find things to spend money on. Same in CRPGs.

Personally I consider that a table specific issue, but it's certainly encouraged by D&D when it stopped explicitly having an end game of level 10+ being investing in castles, temples, towers, guild houses and armies.

[BRC]

The proliferation of conditions and magic that reverses them means conditions can seldom persist (in many games) because of an expectation of perfect-shape characters at each adventure and functionally limitless resources. Once the door was opened for fee-for-service magic (items, healing, condition removal) and it was on the same currency as buying food/armor/castles this seems the natural conclusion.

So, I'm of two thoughts about this.

On one hand, I'm of the opinion that major conditions that severely affect how a character plays are something to be used with Caution. People want to play their characters, and if Greatsword Bob loses his hand, he can't really be Greatsword Bob anymore.


On the other hand, the restrictions of Vancian casting for resolving all spells means that any condition removal is either inaccessible or pretty casual.

Like, consider the spell "Remove Curse". It's an absolute effect. Any cleric of sufficiently high level can prep and cast it, with the only cost being that, for that day, they have one less 3rd level spell slot to use.


So, if the PC's have a Curse to break, and they have a Cleric of at least 5th level, it's pretty trivial to break the curse. Just prepare and cast the spell.

If they don't have a cleric, but they KNOW a cleric who might help them, then they may have to pay for the service, but it's hard justifying too much payment, especially for a good-aligned cleric helping a good-aligned party, since all the Cleric "Loses" for this service is that they can't do as much magic for one day.

So unless the idea is that the Cleric is spending every day using all their 3rd level spell slots to do important and/or valuable things, it's kind of hard to justify the Cleric extracting much of a cost.

There really needs to be a system outside standard vancian casting for bigger, nifty ritual spells like "Regenerate" and "Remove Curse" and the like. Some way to get a bit more game out of what should be a serious challenge, rather than just a minor inconvenience.


Edit: Really, conditions need to fall into two categories. Tactical-level stuff, which can get cleared up instantly with a spell, or wait out and deal with on a Rest or something (So you're not obligated to drag a cleric around with you).

And Campaign-level stuff, like curses and lost limbs and diseases and the like, which CAN'T get cleared up with a simple spell slot, and require a more elaborate resolution.


Similarly, tactical level conditions can be thrown around pretty freely, since they won't mess with a character long-term. Campaign-level conditions can be used or not used based on what the table decides.

Vancian Casting should generally be limited to Tactical scale problems. Campaign Scale conditions should use a different system, independent of vancian casting.

[ahyangyi]

Second thing: The underlying issue, here, I think is mismatch of resource scales. D&D PCs rapidly have massive piles of money and no use for them. They can buy most anything they want and are walking examples of hyperinflationary pressure. So how do you get them to need to "buy" a scarce resource without just flinging gold at it? The witch always needs to require a special MacGuffin that can't be ordered from Amazon. The proliferation of conditions and magic that reverses them means conditions can seldom persist (in many games) because of an expectation of perfect-shape characters at each adventure and functionally limitless resources. Once the door was opened for fee-for-service magic (items, healing, condition removal) and it was on the same currency as buying food/armor/castles this seems the natural conclusion.

What version of D&D is it? I don't remember "piles of money and no use" in 3e and 4e. Even if technically the 4e economy has more inflation than all other editions (item prices grow exponentially instead of quadratically).

5e is a special case where magic items are rare and don't have prices.

[icefractal]

On the subject of the map matching the territory, IME it's a matter of degree rather than a binary - no TTRPG I've seen has been a perfect match, and none have been completely disjoint.

Also, for individual mechanics, often (although not always) whether it directly correlates to the fiction, is more loosely connected, or is completely disconnected is a matter of how much you're willing for the fiction to differ from the genre-norms / "source material".

For example - HP. If you say that a high-level character is still physiologically a normal human and only survives things like dragons by skill / luck, then you'll run into some spots where HP doesn't correlate well with the fiction. On the other hand, if you say that being high-level literally changes you on a physical level - that stabbing someone sufficiently badass is like trying to stab an oak tree or a boulder and most people can't even draw blood - then there's no disconnect; it works how you'd expect. (There are other explanations that work on a concrete level as well - inner pool of positive energy for example).

Martial dailies are like that IMO. If you say "they're just people who are really good at fighting", then there are some situations that don't make sense. If you say "Martial is a power source like the others are, and like the others it has its own rules. Martial characters are not just good at fighting, they're also tapping into a cosmic force that doesn't exist IRL," then there's no disconnect.

4E has (on average) more of a fluid binding between the mechanics and fiction than 3E, but it's more concrete than a lot of other games which are commonly called RPGs. And I'm not sure binding solidity is even a reasonable metric for "how much an RPG" something is, although I'd agree that I value it personally.

[Quertus]

Phrased as an unpopular opinion: Hit points are less immersion breaking/etc than encounter/daily abilities in 4e.

Yes, I mean more. Sorry!

Well, this pair is shorter than your longer post (thank you Captain Obvious).

For reference, my definition of RPG cares less about the problem than the solution, less about the degree of immersion breaking than the complexity of the code necessary to remedy it.

Personally, HP happen to not only match my view of reality better than certain other rules, they match my view of "game reality" even better, and require very little code to adapt. Some of the rules surrounding some of the implementations of HP in some games require additional "huh, what?!" coding, but HP themselves aren't nearly as world building shattering as, say, Diplomacy.

Why is handing you a group (Cluedrew as an example) that found the territory matches the map not sufficient evidence? If that group and you disagree in your evaluation of whether the territory matches the map, is it an RPG?

By labeling something "an RPG" or "not an RPG" are you describing something about the RPG or something about Quertus' evaluation of the RPG independent of everyone else's evaluations? If this is a shorthand for "Does Quertus know of a territory that matches this map under Quertus's evaluation", then I think using "an RPG" vs "not an RPG" is clear as mud.

Cluedrew does not claim that the territory matches the map - quite the opposite, in fact.

Anyone who claimed that the territory matches the map either a) would be wrong, or b) would be holding the answer I've been seeking. Either way, were I to hear such a claim, I'd be asking to see their code, I'd be asking for their territory.

(Sith Lord stance) Nobody claims that the territory in 4e matches the map. In fact, they made up the term "disassociated mechanics" just to emphasize that fact.

(The preceding paragraph has no bearing on the Truth. And vice versa.)

To answer your question… "long ago" (probably recently, darn senility)… uh… Cluedrew got tired of my running gag of calling 4e not an RPG. I explained that, by my definitions, it isn't. Cluedrew showed interest in my definitions. I explained, "it's complicated".

Hopefully that's close to right.

Anyway, this (and one or more other posts in other threads (darn senility)) aren't about 4e, they're about what role-playing is, and, therefore, what an RPG is, according to my arcane definitions.

4e just gets to be the But of the joke, because running gag.

I define… no… my definition includes the requirement that… gah, it's hard to say honestly. Sith Lord version: when you're viewing things as the character, you're role-playing. When the map doesn't match the territory, and you have to drop out of character to play the game, when you leave "role-playing stance", you're not role-playing. To qualify to a Sith Lord as an RPG, one must have built a territory that matches the map, to allow uninterrupted "role-playing stance".

Again, that's not Truth, but it'll get you awfully close to (that part of) my definition.

I mean, it's not weird to define a role-playing game, at least in part, for its capacity to support role-playing, is it? Or to define role-playing in terms of making choices for the character from the characters PoV?

Like… in college, there was this silly exercise where (iirc, darn senility) you were handed a problem, "the optimal pseudocode", and "the optimal code". The exercise was just to read the problem & the pseudocode, and write (copy) the code.

One of the problems bugged me.

Because, yes, that was exactly the "best" (clearest, easiest) pseudocode for solving that problem, and, yes, that was exactly the "best" (clearest, easiest) code for solving that problem, but they didn't match up. The pseudocode for the best code would have been less clean, more complex; the code one would develop just from implementing that pseudocode would have been… inelegant. Suboptimal.

Both the code and the pseudocode were so obviously the correct answer to this problem, no one else had seen that they didn't match up… and even the Professor didn't care when it was pointed out.

Similarly, IME, most players don't notice many of the times when they break RP to evaluate the game mechanics, because it's just obviously right at both ends.

But everywhere where the territory doesn't match the map, when you're there, if you're playing the map, you're not role-playing.

The amount of effort it would take to build a territory to match that map is in no small part used as a metric for how "good" an RPG is, by my definitions. If that difficulty is "impossible", then it's not an RPG (Sith Lord stance).

I do indeed currently estimate the DC of building a "4e map"-compatible territory, that passes my "this pseudocode doesn't match this code" level of detailed scrutiny at "impossible". Which is (not entirely unlike) what I mean when I say, "4e is not an RPG".

Now, I'll admit, there's pieces of this that sound "unfair" to my ears, but, what seeming unfairness I see, at least, is remedied by the fact that this is a map of my stance, not the territory. I'm still trying to vaguely describe a few pieces of this elephant, and struggling to succeed even at that. (Which is ultimately why I didn't make a "Quertus' definition of role-playing" thread)

[Cluedrew]

For reference, my definition of RPG cares less about the problem than the solution, less about the degree of immersion breaking than the complexity of the code necessary to remedy it.

That's an odd way to split it up, and a hard one to measure. Building off of kyoryu's example I do find HP to be one of those things I have to modify the inputs for to keep the world making sense. Now you could say that icefractal's solution (one of them) is simple fix and is minimal change. But is it? Lore and flavour text is all build around this one assumption and its not handled by the new assumption. So how do you measure that?

Measuring disconnect is also hard, but when someone says "that felt like a huge disconnect" I know roughly what you are talking about. I can't say that for "the code to fix the simulation would be huge and complicated".

Cluedrew does not claim that the territory matches the map - quite the opposite, in fact.

The level of matching (or mismatching) in 4e is on par with that 3.5e and other editions I have played. So, unless you want to defend the VERY unpopular opinion of 3.5e is not a role-playing game I am going to say that would let 4e qualify as well.

To answer your question... "long ago" (probably recently, darn senility)... uh... Cluedrew got tired of my running gag of calling 4e not an RPG. I explained that, by my definitions, it isn't. Cluedrew showed interest in my definitions. I explained, "it's complicated".

It has to do with Tomatoes, or How Not To Define "Art". Particularly people attempting to disassociate labels they care about (role-playing games) with things they don't like (D&D 4e). Its like people trying not to take comics or computer games seriously, and that is kind of the tone that was coming across. I don't think they were intentional, but still it is fairly problematic so I was trying to head that off.

Plus it doesn't strike me as a very useful definition because no one (except you) seems to be able to use it and no one (except you) seems to agree with the things it includes or excludes. I know more people who call 4e an role-playing game - even amongst those who hate it - than not so you need a really strong argument to change my mind on that. I'm not expecting that but I have been surprised before and... I have enough confidence in you that there is probably some grain of wisdom in their even if it isn't entirely correct. Like the tier debate if you remember that.

I hope that all came out right.

On another note, I always wonder if this part of the reason for the emotion (almost anger sometimes) in the role-playing is not storytelling arguments. That and pushback against people going "oh, the systems you like are relics of the past and aren't 'real' role-playing".

[Anonymouswizard]

New opinion: low level D&D characters have too little hp, high level characters have too much. I'd probably double first level hp and go back to only getting a handful per level after 9th level. Low level characters need to be a bit more survivable, especially 1st level characters, because a single good hit can put down even dedicated warriors. But at the same time whether high level Fighters should be able to fall from orbit is questionable.

Oh, and give Fighters more skills. Any Fighter who doesn't have as many skills as a wizard isn't pulling their weight.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That and pushback against people going "oh, the systems you like are relics of the past and aren't 'real' role-playing".

I'm going to say that this kind of gatekeeping (that you're describing here, not that you're displaying here) is exactly one of the things that irritates me the most.

[dafrca]

On another note, I always wonder if this part of the reason for the emotion (almost anger sometimes) in the role-playing is not storytelling arguments. That and pushback against people going "oh, the systems you like are relics of the past and aren't 'real' role-playing".

I hate anyone who is pushing the "only one way to play or BadWrongFun arguments. The goal of the game has always been and should always be to have fun. Everything else serves that goal. If everyone at the table si having fun and playing the RPG the way they like then it is a success.

[Pex]

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?

If the player who is always glaring is not disrupting the game making people wish he wasn't at the table then let him have his fun. If out of game the player tells the DM he's not feeling involved then the DM should encourage him to speak up and take initiative. The DM can help him by doing the first initiations. Have NPCs approach him despite standing in the corner glaring. Otherwise, the player may be enjoying himself. He can be really into the glorified chess of combat. He's fine with being the audience of the drama other PCs do. Maybe he dumped CH on purpose to have an excuse. Maybe he's standing in the corner on purpose to play the Mysterious Stranger. Maybe he's looking for other people who are listening in what the other PCs do out of suspicion. Have his paranoia be right for once.

[OldTrees1]

Cluedrew does not claim that the territory matches the map - quite the opposite, in fact.

Anyone who claimed that the territory matches the map either a) would be wrong, or b) would be holding the answer I've been seeking. Either way, were I to hear such a claim, I'd be asking to see their code, I'd be asking for their territory.

What if you saw their code and disagreed? Does that mean they would be wrong? Or could they have been holding one of myriad answers that work, but don't work for you. You use a code analogy later, you probably know that the same bash script can function in one shell and fail in another. In one environment the code matches the pseudocode but in the other it does not. One shell finds a territory : map match, the other does not.

Is your definition about
A) When there exists a territory such that Quertus can map it to the map
B) When there exists a territory such that someone can map it to the map
C) When there exists a territory such that everyone can map it to the map

Most RPGs fail C.
4E fails A as far as we can tell.
4E does not fail B.

Whenever you describe your definition mechanically (not leaving the role-playing-stance) it sounds like B. However you require evidence of A instead of accepting evidence of B.

I don't know if evidence of A exists, but I have evidence of B.

Like… in college, there was this silly exercise where (iirc, darn senility) you were handed a problem, "the optimal pseudocode", and "the optimal code". The exercise was just to read the problem & the pseudocode, and write (copy) the code.

One of the problems bugged me.

Because, yes, that was exactly the "best" (clearest, easiest) pseudocode for solving that problem, and, yes, that was exactly the "best" (clearest, easiest) code for solving that problem, but they didn't match up. The pseudocode for the best code would have been less clean, more complex; the code one would develop just from implementing that pseudocode would have been… inelegant. Suboptimal.

Both the code and the pseudocode were so obviously the correct answer to this problem, no one else had seen that they didn't match up… and even the Professor didn't care when it was pointed out.

Similarly, IME, most players don't notice many of the times when they break RP to evaluate the game mechanics, because it's just obviously right at both ends.

But everywhere where the territory doesn't match the map, when you're there, if you're playing the map, you're not role-playing.

The amount of effort it would take to build a territory to match that map is in no small part used as a metric for how "good" an RPG is, by my definitions. If that difficulty is "impossible", then it's not an RPG (Sith Lord stance).

I do indeed currently estimate the DC of building a "4e map"-compatible territory, that passes my "this pseudocode doesn't match this code" level of detailed scrutiny at "impossible". Which is (not entirely unlike) what I mean when I say, "4e is not an RPG".

Now, I'll admit, there's pieces of this that sound "unfair" to my ears, but, what seeming unfairness I see, at least, is remedied by the fact that this is a map of my stance, not the territory. I'm still trying to vaguely describe a few pieces of this elephant, and struggling to succeed even at that. (Which is ultimately why I didn't make a "Quertus' definition of role-playing" thread)

Did you know the level of detailed scrutiny is a configuration? I can dial it down or up. As I tune it up the list of RPGs that I can't map a territory to increases. If I tune it up high enough nothing is an RPG. Or I can tune it down. As I tune it down the list of RPGs I can't map a territory to decreases. If I tune it down low enough I get weird results.

What setting should I use when discussing RPGs? It is an arbitrary level of detailed scrutiny and I am but one of many that practice this hobby. Should I use your definition, but at the level of detailed scrutiny I set?

What if the ability to map maps to territory (and vice versa) is not limited to a single dimension. Honestly I have an easier time mapping D&D than I do mapping Dread. And that is hilariously backwards.

[Bohandas]

IOW, let's look at two things:

1) As a Fighter, once I"ve done my super spinny move, I can't do it until I either rest a little bit, or overnight.
2) As a reasonably experienced fighter, I can walk straight into a crossbow shot with zero risk. I can walk across lava with zero risk, provided I don't do it for too long. I can survive falls from hundreds of feet.

Objectively, neither of those precisely match to the real-world. I have a hard time saying that the difference between the game mechanics and the real world is greater for the first than the second.

It's not a matter of matching the real world, it's a matter of matching fiction and cinema. There's zillions of superheroes who can do item 2, but item 1 is rarely seen. To be clear, there's plenty of instances of characters being too tired to fight in general, but never of "i've used up this move, but somehow I can still use all my other moves". Not unless the move is throwing a grenade.

And true, they rarely spam the same move over and over again, but that seems more like an instance of the moves being very conditional, or the character gets injured or drugged, or their opponent is wise to it now; they're never just out of it

[Tanarii]

It's not a matter of matching the real world, it's a matter of matching fiction and cinema. There's zillions of superheroes who can do item 2, but item 1 is rarely seen. To be clear, there's plenty of instances of characters being too tired to fight in general, but never of "i've used up this move, but somehow I can still use all my other moves". Not unless the move is throwing a grenade.

RPGs aren't stories, but in various forms of story media it's very common to only be able to do your special spinny move once in a scene, and then go on to a different special move if the scene still requires it.

[icefractal]

It's hard to say if it's even a disconnect, because for characters who have "special" abilities, it's usually not specified why they're only used relatively infrequently. Like, nothing contradicts that they're 1/day, but nothing implies it either. So it's only a mismatch if you decide on fiction where they're unlimited.

[Anonymouswizard]

A potential solution might be too let Marital characters use an action (probably minor or move) to reshuffle which Encounter or Daily powers are expended. So you can use Spinny Death Attack twice in a battle, but you have to spend some time setting it up again and have to sacrifice Leap Onto Head to get it back.

[KorvinStarmast]

Don't drop interesting obstacles with a quick-fix just because it is easy. Sometimes the struggle of overcoming them is the fun part.

Depends on the game and the GM and the style at the table. Sometimes, yeah, it's neat as heck. I remember the old crit tables from Dragon magazine that left limbs all about the battlefield. Some players embraced that challenge, other players would retire the character and drag in another one ...

Games rarely have the space for your character to train to survive and even fight without sight, and that goes double for D&D.

WoTC paced games for sure. The pacing of the previous publisher's game, in the campaign style of D&D, required multiple days, frequently, to recover HP to full after a major dungeon crawl or serious adventure into the mad wizard's tower.

Personally i found it really off-putting and uncomfortable that so many OOTS readers were insisting Durkon's mom gets her arm grown back even when she repeatedly said she didn't want it.

If she'd have wanted her arm back, she'd have found a way to get it back given the raw tenacity of that character as depicted.

The Giant introduced reasons to not grow that arm back. Because it needs reasons to seem even remotely reasonable. And even with those reasons it is not enough for some.

They need to write their own story then. I found it poignant that her boy, of whom she is so proud, dedicated his life to being a cleric and arrived at the ability to do for his mom what he perceived as a great favor, a great payback for all of the sacrifices that she made for him. For her to not accept that (at least not immediately) was IMO good story telling in terms of "people/characters are quirky and each has their own unique voice" - so I appreciated how he worked that in.

Character growth does not require mutilation. Character growth, aside from gaining levels and all that entails, is not required at all.

True. As I noted above, in our old school games, some players embraced the "I've got a peg leg now" situation and others just retired the character. Very much a matter of personal taste.

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

Sergeant York's story is also unlikely, but it happened IRL.

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

They seem to me to be intersecting sets.

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."

My response to a player like that is "I sure hope you bring it if things turn violent/dangerous. Otherwise, why does my character put up with you?"

RPGs aren't stories, but in various forms of story media it's very common to only be able to do your special spinny move once in a scene, and then go on to a different special move if the scene still requires it.

Or you could watch Bruce Lee movies and watch him do the same roundhouse kick over and over again on speeded up film. (Granted, he had other moves, and those "Dragon" movies with Bruce Lee were such great fun.)

[Mastikator]

It's hard to say if it's even a disconnect, because for characters who have "special" abilities, it's usually not specified why they're only used relatively infrequently. Like, nothing contradicts that they're 1/day, but nothing implies it either. So it's only a mismatch if you decide on fiction where they're unlimited.

Shounen anime often operates on this logic, the characters "run out of chakra" or have to yell out their move. D&D is very similar if Shounen anime had more strict rules. The barbarian even has main teenage boy protagonist energy, if he gets angry he'll unleash the power which makes him even harder to kill and he just has so much innate power that he can barely control it

[Telok]

A potential solution might be too let Marital characters use an action (probably minor or move) to reshuffle which Encounter or Daily powers are expended. So you can use Spinny Death Attack twice in a battle, but you have to spend some time setting it up again and have to sacrifice Leap Onto Head to get it back.

Basically treat them like 5e spells & slots? Sounds familiar. It did work quite well though. Pity about the errata, and that because its not a sacred cow from a previous edition it will never even be considered.

Re: Character growth vs advancement vs lopped off limbs.

Its most a case of dueling definitions with people not fully able to explain things. Some define "character growth" as gaining more hit points and damage on level-up, others see that as just numbers advancement and "growth" being a more rp/character personality thing, yet others consider "growth" to be a character gaining new abilities to change the game world (beyond getting more or differently worded ways to do damage, take damage, or roll saves).

The stuff about lopped off limbs came from someone annoyed that D&D these days doesn't do any long term character effects other than.... I think lycanthropy, which most players see as a buff instead of a 'curse'. Long term character effects are character growth, the character gets to change their interaction with the game world and possibly learn new things, but a subset of the player base despises them.

For the thread:
1) hit points, damage, saves, attacks, etc., going up isn't actual character advancement. The stuff you fight & roll for will pretty much keep pace with your character numbers in one form or another. The character isn't really getting any better in the game if you're just staying on the hp/damage/save treadmill.

2) 4e actually got non-AC defenses right, for how current D&D uses them. They were originally a last ditch luck check when you screwed up the player skill challenge & rp portion of the game. People (normal/sober) actually try to avoid getting bitten by deadly snakes, not "tank the damage". WotC has turned saves into just another sort of defense that you have to raise along with AC & hp in order to have a not-crap character.

[Anonymouswizard]

Shounen anime often operates on this logic, the characters "run out of chakra" or have to yell out their move. D&D is very similar if Shounen anime had more strict rules. The barbarian even has main teenage boy protagonist energy, if he gets angry he'll unleash the power which makes him even harder to kill and he just has so much innate power that he can barely control it

...

So low level D&D is Lord of the Rings/Conan, mid level D&D is Berserk/Goblin Slayer, and high levels are Bleach/Dragonball?

That actually makes a lot of sense.

[KorvinStarmast]

high levels are Bleach/Dragonball?

The 'rocket tag' nature of things like Imprisonment, Feeblemind, and Force Cage, etc, seems to support your theme there. Likewise PWK, Disintegrate, and so on.

[Tanarii]

Or you could watch Bruce Lee movies and watch him do the same roundhouse kick over and over again on speeded up film. (Granted, he had other moves, and those "Dragon" movies with Bruce Lee were such great fun.)

Sounds like an at-will attack, with flavor "opponent flies, flips, or spins through the air" and rider "Push 1 square or is knocked Prone."