D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Oofta]

Yet funnily enough the very next poster not only understood what I meant but meaningfully responded to it.

But in the interests of communication let me clarify.

Your analogy is one true wayism. You are saying that the man’s health is supported by the fact that he doesn’t have a vehicle. Which is true.

But it is then extended because of various claims in this thread that the lack of mechanics in a system equates to support. And any suggestion that we add optional mechanics to give a different kind of support is immediately shouted down as completely unnecessary because lack of mechanics is in itself all the support needed.

Now if you’re like me and you think that the lack of mechanics is actually not support, I get left entirely out in the cold. I’m not allowed to have a vehicle because if I have a vehicle that somehow means that the guy will no longer be healthy.

It’s one true wayism all the way through. This whole thread has been an exercise in one true wayism. Anything other than Freeform play is derided as rollplay and denounced as actively hurting the game.

Is that clearer?

People saying that they prefer freeform play is not deciding anything. It's simply declaring a preference, one that is held by the people I happen to play with.

 

[Imaro]

Or the possibilities are reduced, with magic fixing proproblems

What possibiities?? With magic and skills and class abilities we have 3 ways to approach survival... take away magic and we have 2.

 

[Lanefan]

Y’know what? I’m going to extend the vehicle analogy.

Because not only are we being told that having a vehicle makes this guy healthy, but also the existence of the option of owning a vehicle would ruin everyone’s health. No one can have a vehicle. And that’s counted as support for health. No one must ever have a choice. Everyone must walk because obviously walking is the best, one true way to health. Owning a vehicle so I can go to the beach and swim is unacceptable. That’s not supporting good health. Everyone must only become healthy in one way. Even the existence of an alternative option must be resisted and shouted down.

This sounds shockingly close to what our local city councillors keep telling us as part of their war on cars. Except their one way to health involves bicycles.

Indeed.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What that means is, every infiltration attempt will fail. Because the DM will simply keep throwing checks until one fails, and then the whole thing falls apart because every fail is a catastrophic failure. There are no degrees of failure. Did you fail your deception check? Yes, then the other person automatically sees through your disguise and raises the alarm.

Every.... single... time.

Yep. I have seen this too, not from every DM but from some of them. Sometimes it is a desire to force failure without appearing to force it. Most of the time, however, I think it's just a lack of skill, and being bad at translating "challenging but achievable" into iterated probability.

It's one of the (many) reasons why I think rules should be designed, not for bad DMs, not even for good DMs, but for mediocre DMs and subpar but well-meaning DMs.

Because bad rules can hardly hold back a great DM, and good rules can't fix a crappy DM. But good rules can really help a mediocre DM a lot, and can help a subpar but well-meaning DM learn to become a better one.

Then you'll just have to accept the drawbacks with the benefits.

See, this is a thing that's been allowed to ruin D&D's design ever since WotC took over (and arguably, even well before then): players complaining about drawbacks and yet still wanting the associated benefits, and the designers acting on those complaints.

Not at all.

Having a deity constantly watching your every move and pulling the plug the instant you slip up is not, in any way, an inherent or required element here. You can--and should--design for a wider berth. Investiture isn't a requirement, and you were extremely skeptical of it when you thought it was. Why are your preferred limitations somehow the necessary, critical element keeping the game high-quality, where their removal has ruined the game, but others' preferred limitations an unacceptable impediment preventing interesting stories or limiting the DM from portraying the kind of world they want to portray?

Simply put, you haven't even tried to respond to the charge of double standards here. What makes your drawbacks a wonderful and essential building block of the game, foolishly cast aside by designers at the request of immature and ignorant players, but a different slate of drawbacks would be an unacceptable intrusion into DM authority and player freedom? It would seem to me you can't have it both ways.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I doubt they have millions of clerics though.

Why? Medieval Europe at the height of the Medieval Period (e.g. near the peak of the Medieval Warm Period) had a population around 100 million, of which approximately 1-2% were in the priesthood. Add in Paladins, since in 3e they worked the same way but would not be classified as priests in IRL terms, and you probably get a minimum of 2%. That's two million divine casters, just for one corner of the world. Even if the world overall averaged only half of that (so 1% of population being priests), the estimated global population of Earth in 1300 was between 360 and 430 million, so 3.6-4.3 million divine spellcasters.

So yes. I stand by what I said. The surveillance theocracy would be crippling to actually doing anything.

 

[Minigiant]

Why? Medieval Europe at the height of the Medieval Period (e.g. near the peak of the Medieval Warm Period) had a population around 100 million, of which approximately 1-2% were in the priesthood. Add in Paladins, since in 3e they worked the same way but would not be classified as priests in IRL terms, and you probably get a minimum of 2%. That's two million divine casters, just for one corner of the world. Even if the world overall averaged only half of that (so 1% of population being priests), the estimated global population of Earth in 1300 was between 360 and 430 million, so 3.6-4.3 million divine spellcasters.

So yes. I stand by what I said. The surveillance theocracy would be crippling to actually doing anything.

And ours is a world without intelligent monsters and regular verifiable divine miracles.

Imagine how many divine clerics there would be if every major religion can teach you 1st level spells?


Base D&D actually has too few priests. And there'd be at least 10+ divine NPC classes.

 

[Minigiant]

People saying that they prefer freeform play is not deciding anything. It's simply declaring a preference, one that is held by the people I happen to play with.

Some people are saying that freeform is always or usually better. I've read it from at least 5 posters now. Likely more. They are not stating a preference, they are stating that the other options are bad or not needed in the game at all.

That's been a problem in the community. The forcing of preferences on others. Especially when doing so and not helping people enjoy your preferences with guidance.

 

[FrogReaver]

Some people are saying that freeform is always or usually better. I've read it from at least 5 posters now. Likely more. They are not stating a preference, they are stating that the other options are bad or not needed in the game at all.

That's been a problem in the community. The forcing of preferences on others. Especially when doing so and not helping people enjoy your preferences with guidance.

You mistake. Defense of a preference often comes across to those that jump in the middle of a conversation as calling other preferences bad. A universal bad is not the intent, a bad for me is perfectly correct though.

If others would stop calling or implying my preferences are bad then I wouldn’t need to defend then and you wouldn’t see me claiming some other preference is bad for me.

 

[Minigiant]

You mistake. Defense of a preference often comes across to those that jump in the middle as calling other preferences bad. A universal bad is not the intent, a bad for me is perfectly correct though.

It's not a defense of preference

It's "X is not needed", "don't see the point o X", or "Y is just better"

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not a defense of preference

It's "X is not needed", "don't see the point o X", or "Y is just better"

X isn’t needed for me. I don’t see the point of X for me. Y is better for me.

Keep in mind this is with the backdrop of being told everything would be so much better if my preferences weren’t met.