The party is sitting around a campfire chatting away. The Bard decides to Persuade the party to reveal their deepest, darkest secret. He succeeds on his Persuasion check and the DM tells the party You feel this need to tell the Bard your deepest, darkest secret. The Warlock decides to Deceive because he doesn't want to reveal how he got his Patron. He succeeds on his Deception check. The Bard doesn't believe him and an Insight check shows that the Warlock is not telling the whole truth.
None of these dice rolls take the Agency away from the Players to control their characters.
For the DM, who is controlling the world, the encounters, multiple personalities with various NPCs, having a dice roll to help determine what your NPC does in this same situation is a benefit. So when the Bard succeeds on his Persuasion roll, it is a help to just have the NPC tell them. It doesn't mean the DM has to tell the truth if it is better for story for the NPC not to.
This is a game and is supposed to be fun for everyone. A DM should never force a Player to make their Character do something unless it is by use of some kind of Mind Control because it makes the Player feel like they are no longer in control of their Character's decisions which makes them not care about their Character. If they don't care about their Character, then it is just a bunch of numbers on a sheet of paper and they can always just make another one.
-If you roll two critical failures in a row with advantage on a check, the outcome is much worse than usual. For combat it's usually enemies get advantage on attacks made against you on their next turn. For out of combat things it depends entirely on the situation.
-If you roll two critical successes in a row with disadvantage on a check, your team is inspired by your struggle to succeed and they all get a d8 inspiration die.
-If you roll three critical failures in a row on any checks, you lose 1 ability score in any stat.
-If you roll three critical successes in a row on any checks, you gain 1 ability score in any stat.
-Meta-gaming provides disadvantage to use at the DM's discretion, even if the event never occurs in character.
-Role playing your character well, even if it would directly result in a bad outcome, usually results in the DM awarding advantage/inspiration.
-No Lucky feat, no Goodberry. Goodberry ruins what would normally be interesting survival situations, and Lucky adds more dice rolls to them game as well as changing the outcome of something outright.
-If you roll two critical failures in a row with advantage on a check, the outcome is much worse than usual. For combat it's usually enemies get advantage on attacks made against you on their next turn. For out of combat things it depends entirely on the situation.
-If you roll two critical successes in a row with disadvantage on a check, your team is inspired by your struggle to succeed and they all get a d8 inspiration die.
-If you roll three critical failures in a row on any checks, you lose 1 ability score in any stat.
-If you roll three critical successes in a row on any checks, you gain 1 ability score in any stat.
-Meta-gaming provides disadvantage to use at the DM's discretion, even if the event never occurs in character.
-Role playing your character well, even if it would directly result in a bad outcome, usually results in the DM awarding advantage/inspiration.
-No Lucky feat, no Goodberry. Goodberry ruins what would normally be interesting survival situations, and Lucky adds more dice rolls to them game as well as changing the outcome of something outright.
With the 3 crits in a row, does if have to be on the same skill, or just 3 generic crits? For example, would it be 3 critical Persuasion checks or could it be 1 critical Persuasion, 1 critical attack roll, and 1 critical Acrobatic?
Don't mind the No Lucky Feat, but a Druid casting Goodberry works for that character. The cold was blowing down and our food was running low. The snow didn't seem to show any signs of stopping. The wound on Karak's leg was festering and it didn't look like he would survive. Part of me thought it would be better if he didn't because at least then, no matter how distasteful it might be, we would have food. Suddenly, out of the snow, a figure emerged. An old man with a kindly face leaning on a gnarled wooden staff. He came towards us, a smile on his face. "Don't worry, my child," he said as he leaned down to Karak. I could see him place something in the half-orc's mouth and wondered as his breathing became less labored. The figure came over to me and reached out his hand. I saw a small berry in it. "Take it," he said. "It will help." Skeptical but desperate, I put the berry in my mouth and bit down on it. Suddenly, a warmth filled my body and the hunger faded. I looked up at the old man in amazement. He smiled down at me again. "Come with me," he said. "I know where there is shelter."
If it were a Cantrip, I could see it being overpowered because a Player could just constantly cast it.. But it is a 1st level spell, so there are a limited number of times you could use it, sacrificing out possible spells needed. I could see limiting how many one Character could eat to prevent it from being used as a healing spell. Eating 10 berries at a time would heal you 10 HP, but it would also mean you were eating the equivalent of 10 days worth of meals.
We got to the old man's cave and took seats around the walls. He waved his hand over the bowl on a table and the same berries appeared. Samini, the halfling Bard ran up and began shoving the berries into her mouth. "Not so many," the old man warned. Samini's face suddenly turned green and she held her mouth as she ran out into the snow. I could hear the sounds of her vomiting and a small chuckle came as I laughed at her greed finally getting the better of her.
You could also limit how long they stay effective. Instead of 24 hours, change it to 1 hour per level of the Spell caster. This would prevent those situations where they cast it before going to bed and regaining their spells and then eating the berries in the morning.
A few days later, the snow had subsided enough that we felt we could leave. I went up and thanked the old man, whose name we had learned was Oldethon. "I want to thank you for your help," I said. "I hate to impose further, but do you think we could have some of those berries to help get us out of the mountains? "I would," he said, his smile dropping slightly. "But unfortunately the magic only lasts a few hours. They would become worthless long before you got to a safe place."
-If you roll two critical failures in a row with advantage on a check, the outcome is much worse than usual. For combat it's usually enemies get advantage on attacks made against you on their next turn. For out of combat things it depends entirely on the situation.
-If you roll two critical successes in a row with disadvantage on a check, your team is inspired by your struggle to succeed and they all get a d8 inspiration die.
-If you roll three critical failures in a row on any checks, you lose 1 ability score in any stat.
-If you roll three critical successes in a row on any checks, you gain 1 ability score in any stat.
-Meta-gaming provides disadvantage to use at the DM's discretion, even if the event never occurs in character.
-Role playing your character well, even if it would directly result in a bad outcome, usually results in the DM awarding advantage/inspiration.
-No Lucky feat, no Goodberry. Goodberry ruins what would normally be interesting survival situations, and Lucky adds more dice rolls to them game as well as changing the outcome of something outright.
With the 3 crits in a row, does if have to be on the same skill, or just 3 generic crits? For example, would it be 3 critical Persuasion checks or could it be 1 critical Persuasion, 1 critical attack roll, and 1 critical Acrobatic?
Don't mind the No Lucky Feat, but a Druid casting Goodberry works for that character. The cold was blowing down and our food was running low. The snow didn't seem to show any signs of stopping. The wound on Karak's leg was festering and it didn't look like he would survive. Part of me thought it would be better if he didn't because at least then, no matter how distasteful it might be, we would have food. Suddenly, out of the snow, a figure emerged. An old man with a kindly face leaning on a gnarled wooden staff. He came towards us, a smile on his face. "Don't worry, my child," he said as he leaned down to Karak. I could see him place something in the half-orc's mouth and wondered as his breathing became less labored. The figure came over to me and reached out his hand. I saw a small berry in it. "Take it," he said. "It will help." Skeptical but desperate, I put the berry in my mouth and bit down on it. Suddenly, a warmth filled my body and the hunger faded. I looked up at the old man in amazement. He smiled down at me again. "Come with me," he said. "I know where there is shelter."
If it were a Cantrip, I could see it being overpowered because a Player could just constantly cast it.. But it is a 1st level spell, so there are a limited number of times you could use it, sacrificing out possible spells needed. I could see limiting how many one Character could eat to prevent it from being used as a healing spell. Eating 10 berries at a time would heal you 10 HP, but it would also mean you were eating the equivalent of 10 days worth of meals.
We got to the old man's cave and took seats around the walls. He waved his hand over the bowl on a table and the same berries appeared. Samini, the halfling Bard ran up and began shoving the berries into her mouth. "Not so many," the old man warned. Samini's face suddenly turned green and she held her mouth as she ran out into the snow. I could hear the sounds of her vomiting and a small chuckle came as I laughed at her greed finally getting the better of her.
You could also limit how long they stay effective. Instead of 24 hours, change it to 1 hour per level of the Spell caster. This would prevent those situations where they cast it before going to bed and regaining their spells and then eating the berries in the morning.
A few days later, the snow had subsided enough that we felt we could leave. I went up and thanked the old man, whose name we had learned was Oldethon. "I want to thank you for your help," I said. "I hate to impose further, but do you think we could have some of those berries to help get us out of the mountains? "I would," he said, his smile dropping slightly. "But unfortunately the magic only lasts a few hours. They would become worthless long before you got to a safe place."
I think the point is that with Goodberry you can completely negate the need for food, it's not a big deal if you don't really do much of the survival or exploration aspect of the game, but if you do then Goodberry does kind of ruin it.
I think the point is that with Goodberry you can completely negate the need for food, it's not a big deal if you don't really do much of the survival or exploration aspect of the game, but if you do then Goodberry does kind of ruin it.
Create Food and Water, Create Bonfire, Control Weather, etc...it's kinda the point of magic
Players not rolling against other players is as whacko an idea as rolling without role play.
Imagine something much less farfetched for gnome barbarian with 5 intellect... "Lets all stack them into the door and lets all ready our weapons at the first one showing up." would you let a player do this without some of rolls if you know this was said in game.
Even there... What about players planning out of game and then acting as such in game ? Im not talking about 1 player here... Im talking most of my players. When they metagame i tell them. I "address" the situation. But what about them thinking they cannot do stuff without my conscent because i force them to play stats they cant understand ?
Not everyone knows what a tricep is. Not everyone knows what parkour is all about and that player trying to wall run up the well hes in. may not understand why his acrobatics is not working. Thats what im talking about.
What about the barbarian gnome who is torturing the human warlock yet the human warlock decides he has no reactions whatsoever because he cant take a gnome seriously ? Hes being tortured yet because player vs player there shouldnt be any rollings ?
Thats what im talking. Putting rules only for npcs and monsters is bullshit.
If you're saying that you dictate to your players how they should play... then... well, you're violating the one thing players have control of in a game. And if you're going to do that, why are those players even there? You obviously know their character better than they do. Just play all the characters for them.
I've only had to deal with a DM trying to dictate how to play my character a few times, and each time it becomes a showdown. They'll either reconsider or I walk from the game and never play with them again. It is a violation of the unspoken agreement of the gaming table. Players control their characters, DM controls everything else. Players trying to dictate your actions and especially DMs trying to dictate your actions are absolutely out of line.
Normally I DM, and the idea of controlling the whole game world and still deciding to squeeze my ego into the players' character actions is just unfathomable. The audacity of it blows me away.
Don't get me wrong, I totally understand seeing someone play their character and getting annoyed by something they're doing, whether it be playing the character in unrealistic or bizarre ways, or heavy metagaming, or inconsistent rational or etc. But directly taking control of their actions and using the skill system as some lame cover of an excuse for doing it is just wrong.
Your 5 Int guy's plan is absolutely basic... primitive even. The fact that you'd force rolls to "allow him" to come up with a plan is just messed up. Especially considering how truly simple as that plan... which is essentially just "everybody stay here and attack at same time when enemy show up". That's animal level intelligent can process this plan...
If your players are doing thing in your game you don't like you really need to have a person to person talk about what kind of game you all want to play, and if you or the players aren't on the same page then no one is at fault, but something isn't fitting right. But to take control from you players will inevitably cause hurt feelings or resentment, and you need to be extremely careful even when doing it though very justifiable story-driven means, let alone doing it all willy nilly because you simply don't like your player's choices.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
No im not but ignoring stats and letting a barbarian with 5 intellect dictates a master plan to stealth into a base and have a heist is ridiculous.
If you are the kind of dm that allow players to ignore their stats then why bring dice to the table ? The very same can be said about your game. Why roll if rolls do not matter ?
The game is already balanced toward players winning. The last thing they require is you giving them benefits that makes the game easier. It doesnt make sense at all to use a rule only for half the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
No im not but ignoring stats and letting a barbarian with 5 intellect dictates a master plan to stealth into a base and have a heist is ridiculous.
If you are the kind of dm that allow players to ignore their stats then why bring dice to the table ? The very same can be said about your game. Why roll if rolls do not matter ?
The game is already balanced toward players winning. The last thing they require is you giving them benefits that makes the game easier. It doesnt make sense at all to use a rule only for half the game.
So if the player with the barbarian with Intelligence of 5 creates a plan of attack, but they say in canon, the wizard came up with the plan, is that okay? That seems like the easiest work around in that kind of event.
So basically meta gaming is right for you as long as you can use an escape route ?
At my table i priorise role play. Which means there is next to no out of characters. If you say something i will take it as your character says it. And we do play with stats so i require that you hold it in if you choose an intellect of 5. After all... There is no real dump stats.
The last thing i want is a player that act contrary to his character sheet. Now i understand not everyone can think like a genious... Thats why there are stats to begin with. I will require intellect checks if need be to help a player roleplay his character.
Let me put you in another context then...
You have a succubus she charmed a player. You play for him ? I dont.... But i will if he completely ignores the control. And yes i often got that kind of player. They would take word for word in order to voluntarily diminish the thing. That is meta gaming. Also ignoring rules for sake of "freedom" which is whack.
If the game didnt want players to lose agency. There wouldnt be charms at all. But they are there. Same for your stats. You chose them... Act like them !
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
So basically meta gaming is right for you as long as you can use an escape route ?
At my table i priorise role play. Which means there is next to no out of characters. If you say something i will take it as your character says it. And we do play with stats so i require that you hold it in if you choose an intellect of 5. After all... There is no real dump stats.
The last thing i want is a player that act contrary to his character sheet. Now i understand not everyone can think like a genious... Thats why there are stats to begin with. I will require intellect checks if need be to help a player roleplay his character.
Let me put you in another context then...
You have a succubus she charmed a player. You play for him ? I dont.... But i will if he completely ignores the control. And yes i often got that kind of player. They would take word for word in order to voluntarily diminish the thing. That is meta gaming. Also ignoring rules for sake of "freedom" which is whack.
If the game didnt want players to lose agency. There wouldnt be charms at all. But they are there. Same for your stats. You chose them... Act like them !
I don't necessarily think it's metagaming. When I play RPGs on a console, I play the game as myself, I don't say oh well this is what X Main Character would do. I play it like I would in that situation, so I don't think there's anything wrong with playing as a player in certain aspects of the game and then playing in character in others.
I would love to know how you force the minimalization of meta-gaming when you have certain abilities with recharge feature. How exactly does a fighter's second wind work and how come it can only be used once per rest? So how does that work in game and in character? How does the character know he can only use that once per rest? In a game that has so much inherent mechanical....ness? you need to have some separation, otherwise the entire thing is just insane.
I understand that sort of play style, but I also think you may have had quite the number of experiences with meta gaming players or power gamers and while there's nothing wrong with that style for those that enjoy it, it seems it DEFINITELY isn't your style.
I feel like the "You chose them, act like them" attitude won't work for every game/player. What happens when there's a shy person who wants to play and thinks that bard is a really cool class. He himself doesn't have any sort of inherent charisma, but his character does.
I think there's a disconnect between player and character that is universally accepted, whereas you want to limit that disconnect to basically the player needs to become the character, in and out of game. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with that style, but it definitely isn't mine, and I don't think I could be a player at your table lol if I'm a smart person that loves puzzle games, but I've played wizard and rogue and bard and now I just want to play the barbarian to be a brute and whack stuff, but then can't give anything noteworthy to any discussion involving plans and basically have to listen to everyone create a plan while I'm sort of outcast, seems not fun to me at all personally, but if it works for you and your players then all is right!
If your players aren't interested in playing a role, why are they playing a Role-Playing game? Every now and then, a player will do something out of Character as they get excited...I know I've done it. As a DM, you have to remind them they are playing Characters who wouldn't know that. Eventually, in my experience, if they continue to do it and the DM has to constantly tell them their character wouldn't do that, it starts becoming frustrating and not fun. If it's not fun, the game falls apart. The one thing to remember is that it is a collaborative effort...the DM should always want the players to succeed while at the same time putting obstacles in the way to make that success mean something. When I see people say things like "the game is too easy for the players to win" it makes it seem like its a DM vs Player game and if the Players win, the DM loses. Remember, the Player Characters are the "heroes" of the story...doesn't mean they can't fail, but we should want them to overcome the obstacles and succeed.
It's one of the issues I have with Critical Role. At times, it seems like Matt really wants to do something and the players do something unexpected so he does something that makes the "action happen." For Example:
In Bats out of Hell, the players turn into bats to get through the dungeon. They get spotted by a group of demons and one of them takes a swipe at them and misses. They players continue on and Matt had the Demons follow and continue to attack. I would question what was so special about a group of bats just flying around that would justify the Demons going after them when they had a group of prisoners they were looking for?
As for the Charm example, you're talking Apples and Oranges. When a player is Charmed or Dominated, they are no longer in control. If the player doesn't want to role-play that, I have no issue with a DM taking over that character for the duration. When a player says my character wouldn't do that, as a DM, I'd agree and say "In the back of your head you scream NO as the fireball is launched at your companions." This is different from a Persuasion check, where the Character still has free will. Again, this requires your Player to be wanting to Role-Play. If one PC or an NPC Persuades another PC to jump off a bridge, they still have a choice to do so or not. A couple of months ago, there was a News Story of a teenage girl whose friends "Persuaded" her to jump off a bridge into the water below. When she got to the edge, she freaked out and didn't want to do it. So even though her friends succeeded on the Persuasion check, she still had the choice to refuse (until, of course, one of her "friends" pushed her off the bridge).
Early you mentioned that the world continues whether your PCs do something or not and sometimes you have to force them to go where you want them to. What happens if they don't'? Unlike a video game where you can do all the side quests before continuing on with the main quest, in a true open world, events keep going. If you want them to go into a mine and find the beginnings of a tear into the Abyss to stop it from opening, and they decide to go elsewhere, does the tear happen anyway and hordes of Demons come flooding out? Or does it just wait patiently for the Characters to show up. If you make every action or inaction have an effect on their world, they would be more inclined to follow those hints you give to get them to go somewhere. And yet again, this requires the Players to want to Role-Play.
By forcing them to react as the roll of the dice dictate, you are taking away the Role-Playing aspect of the game. It becomes just a game of stats and, at least in my experience, it makes a player not really care about the Character but only about what the Character can do. If this is the game you want, go for it. For me, the Character is more than just a group of numbers on a sheet of paper.
The roleplay aspect shouldnt overrule mechanics. Just like mechanics shouldnt overule the role play. The fighters second wind is easy. Dont take it as just a healing. Its more then that. When boromir in lord of the ring took the first arrow. He continued still. The second arrow.... Second wind kicks in. He breathes and ignore the pain. Second wind is just that. Hp is your heroic measure. Second winds gives you this little boost of heroics in you. You still need to recover afterward. Same for wild shape and druids, same for wizards arcane recovery. Clerics needs to pray to gain back channel divinity. Its nothing to fluff really. As for rest... I always found it stupid that everything takes an hour. So everything requires a simple rest. Just like our 15 minutes at our jobs. The only thing that requires an hour is the bandaging of wounds. To heal they require an hour. But for a warlock to get his spells back... 15 minutes should suffice.
The charm exemple works when you consider that hes against the idea of ripping away free will of his players. The same question remains. If he doesnt want to use stats to enfore characters because it removes free will. Then why doesnt he have a problem with charms who clearly remove free wills. Its the same concepts. Removing agency ! You cannot have a problem with one and not the other. Its more like green apples and red apples.
I also have a problem with your idea that players should always win. I never played that. My role as dm is for them to have fun. If you make your players always win then where is the fun in tactics. They should always just charge in because youll change your stuff for them to win still. On my part ill play around death give them a second or even a third chance while still giving them big drawbacks. That way they will think twice before charging in.
As for CR i understand your point... But... A bunch of bats cannot be suspicious in an environment where there is none. That was the point. Keyleth never asked herself the most basic question... Is there bats in this place ? No she told herself the opposite... Tunnels so bats ! Of course the demons would obviously know something was a mist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Magic removing Free Will is completely different from someone trying to convince you to do something. You have the choice to agree or disagree to do it. With the Magic there is no choice.
Whoever said players should always win? I said you should always root for them to succeed, but that doesn't mean they will. There has always been an unspoken rule in D&D...there is no winning Dungeons and Dragons.
And of course, this is all beside the point. Play your game your way, I'll play mine. Not like we're likely to ever meet across the table.
The roleplay aspect shouldnt overrule mechanics. Just like mechanics shouldnt overule the role play. The fighters second wind is easy. Dont take it as just a healing. Its more then that. When boromir in lord of the ring took the first arrow. He continued still. The second arrow.... Second wind kicks in. He breathes and ignore the pain. Second wind is just that. Hp is your heroic measure. Second winds gives you this little boost of heroics in you. You still need to recover afterward. Same for wild shape and druids, same for wizards arcane recovery. Clerics needs to pray to gain back channel divinity. Its nothing to fluff really. As for rest... I always found it stupid that everything takes an hour. So everything requires a simple rest. Just like our 15 minutes at our jobs. The only thing that requires an hour is the bandaging of wounds. To heal they require an hour. But for a warlock to get his spells back... 15 minutes should suffice.
That doesn't explain how the fighter knows he needs a break to boost his heroics? Think of that in terms of real life, can you just choose to be more heroic right now, and then go, oh dang, I can't do that again for 15 minutes! That doesn't make sense. You're sort of picking and choosing what you want to make sense and what you want to just go "unquestioned" for lack of a better term. My counter to that is that's what everyone else is doing when it comes to a smart player who is playing a dumb character. It's going unquestioned that the player can come up with a plan and give his input even though his character wouldn't know how to strategize.
And in terms of your example, Boromir died from his wounds, so in the aspect you provided, it's more of a temporary suspension of damage to continue on, whereas mechanically, it legitimately heals you. At no point did any of Boromir's wounds close up.
I also have a problem with your idea that players should always win. I never played that. My role as dm is for them to have fun. If you make your players always win then where is the fun in tactics. They should always just charge in because youll change your stuff for them to win still. On my part ill play around death give them a second or even a third chance while still giving them big drawbacks. That way they will think twice before charging in.
He did not say they should always win, in fact he said quite the opposite. And if the goal is to have fun, please tell me how much your players love being told that because their character has a low intelligence that they cannot contribute to any strategy ever for the entirety of their tenure with that character?
Magic removing Free Will is completely different from someone trying to convince you to do something. You have the choice to agree or disagree to do it. With the Magic there is no choice.
Whoever said players should always win? I said you should always root for them to succeed, but that doesn't mean they will. There has always been an unspoken rule in D&D...there is no winning Dungeons and Dragons.
And of course, this is all beside the point. Play your game your way, I'll play mine. Not like we're likely to ever meet across the table.
Agreed. If being magically charmed is the same thing as someone rolling a 20 on a persuasion check, then the spells wouldn't exist at all. If you can do the same thing with a spell, that requires a save roll, that you can with a skill check, then the road ends at the same destination. The reality is these two are very different and in fact, not the same concept, as DnDPaladin claims it is.
Squigs. You are mistaken on your conception of heroism.
Heroism isnt something you can dish out whenever you like. Your exemple of fighter isnt taking into account fatigues and the likes just because dd doesnt do it. Its quite simple really. If you go over what you normally do. Aka second wind... Then why would you be able to go beyond at all times ? Its simple really. In real life you wouldnt be able to push yourself into overdrive at your job and hope to do that all day now would you. Its the same for fighters.
@behr then what about charm person where you still have choices. The problem stays the same. It is still ridiculous to use ruling for only half the game. Aka use it against bosses but not versus other players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I have to agree that removing spells for sake of survival... They are using spell slots. That means they wont have that for fights or the likes.
I agree shortening their time is better.
There is also the point that players never really want to manage their rations. The fact that food is included in the inn prices. The fact that normally villages are built with food in mind thus rarely take more then 2 days travel between them.
Really survival is overrated.
Also... Are you gonna stop a player from using his survival skill to find something. Because by ruling one survival check finds enough food for one person.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
@behr then what about charm person where you still have choices. The problem stays the same. It is still ridiculous to use ruling for only half the game. Aka use it against bosses but not versus other players.
It all comes down to role-playing. Charm Person says you regard whomever Charmed you as a "friendly acquaintance". If your " friendly acquaintance" tells you to jump off the bridge, nothing says you have to do so. However, if they say "Would you mind handing me that sword for a minute," well that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Based on everything you've said, your Players either don't want to Role-Play or don't know how to, and by "forcing" (your words) to "role-play" only based on their stats, you are continuing that problem. As I've said before, a Character is more than the numbers on the page. Again, just based on how you've described it, in your game the numbers are more important than "character". In my experience, and I have played games like that, you have no bond with your character. In your example with the Warlock who was tortured, you said he just presented a new character as soon as the old one died. If I were DM'ing, for me this would be a red flag that my Players weren't really engaged in the game. They may be having fun, running around, killing monsters, but they don't care about the characters, the world, their impact on it...and to be totally frank, that is a failure on the DM's part. And as I've said before, you want to play that way, go for it. For me, I'd get bored within a couple of sessions and leave the game.
-------------------
Let's take an example here. A Fighter is out on the streets and he is approached by this little kid in rags, a sad look on his face, his hands out and asks for some coin. He makes his Persuasion role.
In your game, that's it. The Fighter hands over some coin regardless of the fact that he was robbed in the past by a group who used a beggar as a scout.
In another game, the DM tells the Fighter "You feel sympathy for this child and want to give him some coin" and the player gets to decide if he wants to or not. He can say "I've been robbed in my youth because I pulled coin from my purse in public, so I refuse to do so." But he might also decide to go against that and give the kid some coin.
If the kid had used a Charm Person spell, that would change the dynamics...this is no longer just some kid off the street, but somebody he knows and is friendly with. So instead, he takes this kid under his arm, leads him to a tavern, buys him a meal, maybe gives him a few coins. Or he could still decide to not do any of that if that if he wouldn't do that for someone whom he was actually friendly with.
If the kid used a Dominate Person spell, the Fighter gives the coin (if he failed his Save of course). Based on what you've said (and as I haven't witnessed your game first hand I can only base this on what you've said), Persuasion is just as powerful as Dominate Person.
It all comes down to role-playing and the players allowing themselves to be drawn into the world the DM is creating.
Squigs. You are mistaken on your conception of heroism.
Heroism isnt something you can dish out whenever you like. Your exemple of fighter isnt taking into account fatigues and the likes just because dd doesnt do it. Its quite simple really. If you go over what you normally do. Aka second wind... Then why would you be able to go beyond at all times ? Its simple really. In real life you wouldnt be able to push yourself into overdrive at your job and hope to do that all day now would you. Its the same for fighters.
I agree.....which is why your concept of giving your fighter his second wind back....AFTER 15 MINUTES, doesn't make any sense with what you just said. If your fighter wanted to heal every 15 minutes, or "give a little boost of heroism" as you called it, then he could. Every 15 minutes, yet you say you can't go beyond at all times.
Additionally, you say that heroism isn't something you can dish out whenever you like, yet the fighter has full control over when he uses it. The point I'm getting at is that it is impossible to eliminate all of the meta in the game, so in your world where you want eliminate meta, how do you explain a fighter that can "boost his heroism" every 15 minutes and once he uses it, he knows he can't do it for another 15 minutes? If this is a function that the fighter can do, and he knows he can do it, since he gets to choose when he uses it, how does he know he can use it, then watch the sun for 15 minutes to pass and go, "Phew now I can access my boost of heroism again!".
@Behr On the ocntrary, my group wants to role play more then they wanna fight. they often take 4 sessions to know where to go and take a decision because they love to role play between themselves much more then making a story go forward. but that's besides the point...
you are making claims that its a DM's fault to force choices onto a player, but you have to do that all the time as a DM. exemple of your players who meets a dragon and get hit by its fear aura. how the hell would you portray that to someone who just do not care and take the game as a video game. you'd obviously play the stats, but what if that monster was a splayer, you'd not play it mechanically just because players choices ? that leaves me to think you probably never want PvP in your group and always enforces players into a story of your own without ever letting them out of that story for their own benefits. nor do i think you develop their story like i do. but again, thats besides the ppoint, since this is only my perception, which just like yours is false and based on things i perceive from your writting. but the fact that you hasve to manage emotionnal responses from your players reguardless of the method you use is something different from all DMs. to me that is a fault of you. you actually use the rules only half way without ever trying to justify it or make it immersive. I love immersion and so are my players. they come back to my game cause they wonder what will happen next. they wonder which road their characters will take and they wonder how it will end for them. now my take on them is different from person to person, but it works for them. they role play based on their emotionnal feelings which i change if any control effect happens. thats what control effects do and thats what i use. the rules as written. you said it yourself, its working right from the stats, so i wonder why you take his side when you said exactly the same thing i did. when my players are charmed or controlled, i dont remove their agency by picking up the charcater. i simply tell them their new emotionnal state. i like to think a vampire charm is making the people fall in love with them. as such thats what i say to the person. the very same is true for a succubus but it goes further as it is more in line with domination. all of these is the same, you remove player agency. but i don't i simply let the player role play it by telling them new emotionnal states which they pick up greatly. because they do want to role play.
now if the players dont want to role play it, like one of my player in that group, he's new to these things and he's the kind of player in real life where nothing scares him. seriously, h'ed run into a wall and wouldn't care. he'd run into a dragon, think... i'm dead... and that would be it. he wouldn't even try to run and all. that very attitude changes the whole dynamic of the group as he tries very hard to be a good guy, but always ends up taking poor decisions. Based on your own mentality that you try to explain to me, that guy you wouldn'T play at all with. that guy you'd ditch, because he'd be so playing himself all the time that he would be ignoring his stats all the time and he would be always low charisma. even if he ever decides to play a sorcerer or a warlock. while me, enforcing my metagaming rule which means a few things... he's learning differences between himself and his character. he's gone higher in role playing in the last year because of it.
its very simple really... the rules are the same may it be for NPC or PC. just like you said before... players talk, if they do insight, thats because they wanna know something. i'd be a darn fool and that would be a DM mistake to not let them do insight checks. the only thing i have rule wise in all my games over the years... i barely ever ask for a check... "The players" have to ask for such things. so if a player enters a room and never ask for a check to perceive whats inside aside from what my description gave. then that rogue hidding behind the couch will be considered having succeeded in his stealth check. i dont play with passives either, since they are bullshit. why would anyone ever roll if their minimum is 10+ whatever number they have. taking the chance of getting lower is ridiculous. though this is pretty darn close to the take 10 from 3rd edition, so i might do just that.
@squig why would it be flawed ? again, you seem to think heroism is the art of going all out. do you really think a fighter uses his second wind every 15 minutes ? i said he gets it back after a 15 minute rest. but to me walking from point A to B at a nomral pace fits that bill. Ever worked in a very stressful environment like a restaurant. ever asked the servers if they'd run all day long like that or if the rushes are the only exception where they need to go over their limit to be on time. that's what im talking about. you're still taking that fighter second wind as a mechanical thing. and again put it simply as such. but mechanical things dont have any meaning in D&D. the reason they put short rest and long rest is to give your player a sense of, i have to rest. what if your players never want to rest, and always want to go for the bbeg all the time. what if they think we're screwed if he does this and that bad guy needs to be stopped. yet your bbeg is barely sdtarted on his plans and is still int he let's talk phase. going on like that should be allowed, but it should also be tiring. which is the point of rest anyway. characters gets tired all the time because they go beyond their powers and limitations.
a wizard neds to get back some energies from his environments, so he takes a rest. 15 minutes of staying still and doing incantations to replenish his arcane energies is fine by me. a fighter ignoring his wounds and going all out on the next round with his second wind is the same. after the fighter or even in the fight, he might just realise his wounds weren't as big he thought they'd be. realising that he needs to breath it out instead of being stressed out. contrary to what people believe fighting is never as easy as it seem. you get stressed you get nervous, you do mistakes. the same is true for everyone. its easy to just put words on whats happenning around that fighter, he might be himself limiting his own abilities. knowing full damn well that he can't take a breather every single time. because he knows his own limits, he knows his own constitution. he might just keep it until it actually matters.
Fighter excels at limited abilities, they know they can break their limits to achieve an effect but they also know they can't go on breaking those limits on a daily basis every single hours. they know they will need rest at some point. just like any of us in real life, we need breathers once in a while. we're not machines that lacks exaustions.
this leads me to tell you this much... if you have trouble managing those rests and those abilities... think of this way, allow your players to go beyond their limit, but everytime they use their limit over and over to try to be heroic. give them exhaustion levels. because thats what those features are, very tiring effects. that fighter may gain back some HPs for heroism, but he's ignoring the fact that he is wounded and dieing slowly. he wouldn'T be doing that all the time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
It is entirely possible that we are agreeing on certain aspects of play but neither of can make it clear enough in words to explain what we are talking about. Without seeing exactly how each other play, it's difficult to be sure we are putting our "visions" out there. At this point, I'd say just drop it as this discussion isn't going anywhere. I can tell that you aren't understanding what I'm trying to say and I'm sure you probably feel the same about me.
The party is sitting around a campfire chatting away. The Bard decides to Persuade the party to reveal their deepest, darkest secret. He succeeds on his Persuasion check and the DM tells the party You feel this need to tell the Bard your deepest, darkest secret. The Warlock decides to Deceive because he doesn't want to reveal how he got his Patron. He succeeds on his Deception check. The Bard doesn't believe him and an Insight check shows that the Warlock is not telling the whole truth.
None of these dice rolls take the Agency away from the Players to control their characters.
For the DM, who is controlling the world, the encounters, multiple personalities with various NPCs, having a dice roll to help determine what your NPC does in this same situation is a benefit. So when the Bard succeeds on his Persuasion roll, it is a help to just have the NPC tell them. It doesn't mean the DM has to tell the truth if it is better for story for the NPC not to.
This is a game and is supposed to be fun for everyone. A DM should never force a Player to make their Character do something unless it is by use of some kind of Mind Control because it makes the Player feel like they are no longer in control of their Character's decisions which makes them not care about their Character. If they don't care about their Character, then it is just a bunch of numbers on a sheet of paper and they can always just make another one.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
-If you roll two critical failures in a row with advantage on a check, the outcome is much worse than usual. For combat it's usually enemies get advantage on attacks made against you on their next turn. For out of combat things it depends entirely on the situation.
-If you roll two critical successes in a row with disadvantage on a check, your team is inspired by your struggle to succeed and they all get a d8 inspiration die.
-If you roll three critical failures in a row on any checks, you lose 1 ability score in any stat.
-If you roll three critical successes in a row on any checks, you gain 1 ability score in any stat.
-Meta-gaming provides disadvantage to use at the DM's discretion, even if the event never occurs in character.
-Role playing your character well, even if it would directly result in a bad outcome, usually results in the DM awarding advantage/inspiration.
-No Lucky feat, no Goodberry. Goodberry ruins what would normally be interesting survival situations, and Lucky adds more dice rolls to them game as well as changing the outcome of something outright.
With the 3 crits in a row, does if have to be on the same skill, or just 3 generic crits? For example, would it be 3 critical Persuasion checks or could it be 1 critical Persuasion, 1 critical attack roll, and 1 critical Acrobatic?
Don't mind the No Lucky Feat, but a Druid casting Goodberry works for that character. The cold was blowing down and our food was running low. The snow didn't seem to show any signs of stopping. The wound on Karak's leg was festering and it didn't look like he would survive. Part of me thought it would be better if he didn't because at least then, no matter how distasteful it might be, we would have food. Suddenly, out of the snow, a figure emerged. An old man with a kindly face leaning on a gnarled wooden staff. He came towards us, a smile on his face. "Don't worry, my child," he said as he leaned down to Karak. I could see him place something in the half-orc's mouth and wondered as his breathing became less labored. The figure came over to me and reached out his hand. I saw a small berry in it. "Take it," he said. "It will help." Skeptical but desperate, I put the berry in my mouth and bit down on it. Suddenly, a warmth filled my body and the hunger faded. I looked up at the old man in amazement. He smiled down at me again. "Come with me," he said. "I know where there is shelter."
If it were a Cantrip, I could see it being overpowered because a Player could just constantly cast it.. But it is a 1st level spell, so there are a limited number of times you could use it, sacrificing out possible spells needed. I could see limiting how many one Character could eat to prevent it from being used as a healing spell. Eating 10 berries at a time would heal you 10 HP, but it would also mean you were eating the equivalent of 10 days worth of meals.
We got to the old man's cave and took seats around the walls. He waved his hand over the bowl on a table and the same berries appeared. Samini, the halfling Bard ran up and began shoving the berries into her mouth. "Not so many," the old man warned. Samini's face suddenly turned green and she held her mouth as she ran out into the snow. I could hear the sounds of her vomiting and a small chuckle came as I laughed at her greed finally getting the better of her.
You could also limit how long they stay effective. Instead of 24 hours, change it to 1 hour per level of the Spell caster. This would prevent those situations where they cast it before going to bed and regaining their spells and then eating the berries in the morning.
A few days later, the snow had subsided enough that we felt we could leave. I went up and thanked the old man, whose name we had learned was Oldethon. "I want to thank you for your help," I said. "I hate to impose further, but do you think we could have some of those berries to help get us out of the mountains? "I would," he said, his smile dropping slightly. "But unfortunately the magic only lasts a few hours. They would become worthless long before you got to a safe place."
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
I think the point is that with Goodberry you can completely negate the need for food, it's not a big deal if you don't really do much of the survival or exploration aspect of the game, but if you do then Goodberry does kind of ruin it.
Create Food and Water, Create Bonfire, Control Weather, etc...it's kinda the point of magic
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
If you're saying that you dictate to your players how they should play... then... well, you're violating the one thing players have control of in a game. And if you're going to do that, why are those players even there? You obviously know their character better than they do. Just play all the characters for them.
I've only had to deal with a DM trying to dictate how to play my character a few times, and each time it becomes a showdown. They'll either reconsider or I walk from the game and never play with them again. It is a violation of the unspoken agreement of the gaming table. Players control their characters, DM controls everything else. Players trying to dictate your actions and especially DMs trying to dictate your actions are absolutely out of line.
Normally I DM, and the idea of controlling the whole game world and still deciding to squeeze my ego into the players' character actions is just unfathomable. The audacity of it blows me away.
Don't get me wrong, I totally understand seeing someone play their character and getting annoyed by something they're doing, whether it be playing the character in unrealistic or bizarre ways, or heavy metagaming, or inconsistent rational or etc. But directly taking control of their actions and using the skill system as some lame cover of an excuse for doing it is just wrong.
Your 5 Int guy's plan is absolutely basic... primitive even. The fact that you'd force rolls to "allow him" to come up with a plan is just messed up. Especially considering how truly simple as that plan... which is essentially just "everybody stay here and attack at same time when enemy show up". That's animal level intelligent can process this plan...
If your players are doing thing in your game you don't like you really need to have a person to person talk about what kind of game you all want to play, and if you or the players aren't on the same page then no one is at fault, but something isn't fitting right. But to take control from you players will inevitably cause hurt feelings or resentment, and you need to be extremely careful even when doing it though very justifiable story-driven means, let alone doing it all willy nilly because you simply don't like your player's choices.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
No im not but ignoring stats and letting a barbarian with 5 intellect dictates a master plan to stealth into a base and have a heist is ridiculous.
If you are the kind of dm that allow players to ignore their stats then why bring dice to the table ? The very same can be said about your game. Why roll if rolls do not matter ?
The game is already balanced toward players winning. The last thing they require is you giving them benefits that makes the game easier. It doesnt make sense at all to use a rule only for half the game.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
So if the player with the barbarian with Intelligence of 5 creates a plan of attack, but they say in canon, the wizard came up with the plan, is that okay? That seems like the easiest work around in that kind of event.
Published Subclasses
So basically meta gaming is right for you as long as you can use an escape route ?
At my table i priorise role play. Which means there is next to no out of characters. If you say something i will take it as your character says it. And we do play with stats so i require that you hold it in if you choose an intellect of 5. After all... There is no real dump stats.
The last thing i want is a player that act contrary to his character sheet. Now i understand not everyone can think like a genious... Thats why there are stats to begin with. I will require intellect checks if need be to help a player roleplay his character.
Let me put you in another context then...
You have a succubus she charmed a player. You play for him ? I dont.... But i will if he completely ignores the control. And yes i often got that kind of player. They would take word for word in order to voluntarily diminish the thing. That is meta gaming. Also ignoring rules for sake of "freedom" which is whack.
If the game didnt want players to lose agency. There wouldnt be charms at all. But they are there. Same for your stats. You chose them... Act like them !
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I don't necessarily think it's metagaming. When I play RPGs on a console, I play the game as myself, I don't say oh well this is what X Main Character would do. I play it like I would in that situation, so I don't think there's anything wrong with playing as a player in certain aspects of the game and then playing in character in others.
I would love to know how you force the minimalization of meta-gaming when you have certain abilities with recharge feature. How exactly does a fighter's second wind work and how come it can only be used once per rest? So how does that work in game and in character? How does the character know he can only use that once per rest? In a game that has so much inherent mechanical....ness? you need to have some separation, otherwise the entire thing is just insane.
I understand that sort of play style, but I also think you may have had quite the number of experiences with meta gaming players or power gamers and while there's nothing wrong with that style for those that enjoy it, it seems it DEFINITELY isn't your style.
I feel like the "You chose them, act like them" attitude won't work for every game/player. What happens when there's a shy person who wants to play and thinks that bard is a really cool class. He himself doesn't have any sort of inherent charisma, but his character does.
I think there's a disconnect between player and character that is universally accepted, whereas you want to limit that disconnect to basically the player needs to become the character, in and out of game. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with that style, but it definitely isn't mine, and I don't think I could be a player at your table lol if I'm a smart person that loves puzzle games, but I've played wizard and rogue and bard and now I just want to play the barbarian to be a brute and whack stuff, but then can't give anything noteworthy to any discussion involving plans and basically have to listen to everyone create a plan while I'm sort of outcast, seems not fun to me at all personally, but if it works for you and your players then all is right!
Published Subclasses
If your players aren't interested in playing a role, why are they playing a Role-Playing game? Every now and then, a player will do something out of Character as they get excited...I know I've done it. As a DM, you have to remind them they are playing Characters who wouldn't know that. Eventually, in my experience, if they continue to do it and the DM has to constantly tell them their character wouldn't do that, it starts becoming frustrating and not fun. If it's not fun, the game falls apart. The one thing to remember is that it is a collaborative effort...the DM should always want the players to succeed while at the same time putting obstacles in the way to make that success mean something. When I see people say things like "the game is too easy for the players to win" it makes it seem like its a DM vs Player game and if the Players win, the DM loses. Remember, the Player Characters are the "heroes" of the story...doesn't mean they can't fail, but we should want them to overcome the obstacles and succeed.
It's one of the issues I have with Critical Role. At times, it seems like Matt really wants to do something and the players do something unexpected so he does something that makes the "action happen." For Example:
In Bats out of Hell, the players turn into bats to get through the dungeon. They get spotted by a group of demons and one of them takes a swipe at them and misses. They players continue on and Matt had the Demons follow and continue to attack. I would question what was so special about a group of bats just flying around that would justify the Demons going after them when they had a group of prisoners they were looking for?
As for the Charm example, you're talking Apples and Oranges. When a player is Charmed or Dominated, they are no longer in control. If the player doesn't want to role-play that, I have no issue with a DM taking over that character for the duration. When a player says my character wouldn't do that, as a DM, I'd agree and say "In the back of your head you scream NO as the fireball is launched at your companions." This is different from a Persuasion check, where the Character still has free will. Again, this requires your Player to be wanting to Role-Play. If one PC or an NPC Persuades another PC to jump off a bridge, they still have a choice to do so or not. A couple of months ago, there was a News Story of a teenage girl whose friends "Persuaded" her to jump off a bridge into the water below. When she got to the edge, she freaked out and didn't want to do it. So even though her friends succeeded on the Persuasion check, she still had the choice to refuse (until, of course, one of her "friends" pushed her off the bridge).
Early you mentioned that the world continues whether your PCs do something or not and sometimes you have to force them to go where you want them to. What happens if they don't'? Unlike a video game where you can do all the side quests before continuing on with the main quest, in a true open world, events keep going. If you want them to go into a mine and find the beginnings of a tear into the Abyss to stop it from opening, and they decide to go elsewhere, does the tear happen anyway and hordes of Demons come flooding out? Or does it just wait patiently for the Characters to show up. If you make every action or inaction have an effect on their world, they would be more inclined to follow those hints you give to get them to go somewhere. And yet again, this requires the Players to want to Role-Play.
By forcing them to react as the roll of the dice dictate, you are taking away the Role-Playing aspect of the game. It becomes just a game of stats and, at least in my experience, it makes a player not really care about the Character but only about what the Character can do. If this is the game you want, go for it. For me, the Character is more than just a group of numbers on a sheet of paper.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
The roleplay aspect shouldnt overrule mechanics. Just like mechanics shouldnt overule the role play. The fighters second wind is easy. Dont take it as just a healing. Its more then that. When boromir in lord of the ring took the first arrow. He continued still. The second arrow.... Second wind kicks in. He breathes and ignore the pain. Second wind is just that. Hp is your heroic measure. Second winds gives you this little boost of heroics in you. You still need to recover afterward. Same for wild shape and druids, same for wizards arcane recovery. Clerics needs to pray to gain back channel divinity. Its nothing to fluff really. As for rest... I always found it stupid that everything takes an hour. So everything requires a simple rest. Just like our 15 minutes at our jobs. The only thing that requires an hour is the bandaging of wounds. To heal they require an hour. But for a warlock to get his spells back... 15 minutes should suffice.
The charm exemple works when you consider that hes against the idea of ripping away free will of his players. The same question remains. If he doesnt want to use stats to enfore characters because it removes free will. Then why doesnt he have a problem with charms who clearly remove free wills. Its the same concepts. Removing agency ! You cannot have a problem with one and not the other. Its more like green apples and red apples.
I also have a problem with your idea that players should always win. I never played that. My role as dm is for them to have fun. If you make your players always win then where is the fun in tactics. They should always just charge in because youll change your stuff for them to win still. On my part ill play around death give them a second or even a third chance while still giving them big drawbacks. That way they will think twice before charging in.
As for CR i understand your point... But... A bunch of bats cannot be suspicious in an environment where there is none. That was the point. Keyleth never asked herself the most basic question... Is there bats in this place ? No she told herself the opposite... Tunnels so bats ! Of course the demons would obviously know something was a mist.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Magic removing Free Will is completely different from someone trying to convince you to do something. You have the choice to agree or disagree to do it. With the Magic there is no choice.
Whoever said players should always win? I said you should always root for them to succeed, but that doesn't mean they will. There has always been an unspoken rule in D&D...there is no winning Dungeons and Dragons.
And of course, this is all beside the point. Play your game your way, I'll play mine. Not like we're likely to ever meet across the table.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
That doesn't explain how the fighter knows he needs a break to boost his heroics? Think of that in terms of real life, can you just choose to be more heroic right now, and then go, oh dang, I can't do that again for 15 minutes! That doesn't make sense. You're sort of picking and choosing what you want to make sense and what you want to just go "unquestioned" for lack of a better term. My counter to that is that's what everyone else is doing when it comes to a smart player who is playing a dumb character. It's going unquestioned that the player can come up with a plan and give his input even though his character wouldn't know how to strategize.
And in terms of your example, Boromir died from his wounds, so in the aspect you provided, it's more of a temporary suspension of damage to continue on, whereas mechanically, it legitimately heals you. At no point did any of Boromir's wounds close up.
He did not say they should always win, in fact he said quite the opposite. And if the goal is to have fun, please tell me how much your players love being told that because their character has a low intelligence that they cannot contribute to any strategy ever for the entirety of their tenure with that character?
Agreed. If being magically charmed is the same thing as someone rolling a 20 on a persuasion check, then the spells wouldn't exist at all. If you can do the same thing with a spell, that requires a save roll, that you can with a skill check, then the road ends at the same destination. The reality is these two are very different and in fact, not the same concept, as DnDPaladin claims it is.
Published Subclasses
Squigs. You are mistaken on your conception of heroism.
Heroism isnt something you can dish out whenever you like. Your exemple of fighter isnt taking into account fatigues and the likes just because dd doesnt do it. Its quite simple really. If you go over what you normally do. Aka second wind... Then why would you be able to go beyond at all times ? Its simple really. In real life you wouldnt be able to push yourself into overdrive at your job and hope to do that all day now would you. Its the same for fighters.
@behr then what about charm person where you still have choices. The problem stays the same. It is still ridiculous to use ruling for only half the game. Aka use it against bosses but not versus other players.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I have to agree that removing spells for sake of survival... They are using spell slots. That means they wont have that for fights or the likes.
I agree shortening their time is better.
There is also the point that players never really want to manage their rations. The fact that food is included in the inn prices. The fact that normally villages are built with food in mind thus rarely take more then 2 days travel between them.
Really survival is overrated.
Also... Are you gonna stop a player from using his survival skill to find something. Because by ruling one survival check finds enough food for one person.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
It all comes down to role-playing. Charm Person says you regard whomever Charmed you as a "friendly acquaintance". If your " friendly acquaintance" tells you to jump off the bridge, nothing says you have to do so. However, if they say "Would you mind handing me that sword for a minute," well that doesn't seem unreasonable.
Based on everything you've said, your Players either don't want to Role-Play or don't know how to, and by "forcing" (your words) to "role-play" only based on their stats, you are continuing that problem. As I've said before, a Character is more than the numbers on the page. Again, just based on how you've described it, in your game the numbers are more important than "character". In my experience, and I have played games like that, you have no bond with your character. In your example with the Warlock who was tortured, you said he just presented a new character as soon as the old one died. If I were DM'ing, for me this would be a red flag that my Players weren't really engaged in the game. They may be having fun, running around, killing monsters, but they don't care about the characters, the world, their impact on it...and to be totally frank, that is a failure on the DM's part. And as I've said before, you want to play that way, go for it. For me, I'd get bored within a couple of sessions and leave the game.
-------------------
Let's take an example here. A Fighter is out on the streets and he is approached by this little kid in rags, a sad look on his face, his hands out and asks for some coin. He makes his Persuasion role.
In your game, that's it. The Fighter hands over some coin regardless of the fact that he was robbed in the past by a group who used a beggar as a scout.
In another game, the DM tells the Fighter "You feel sympathy for this child and want to give him some coin" and the player gets to decide if he wants to or not. He can say "I've been robbed in my youth because I pulled coin from my purse in public, so I refuse to do so." But he might also decide to go against that and give the kid some coin.
If the kid had used a Charm Person spell, that would change the dynamics...this is no longer just some kid off the street, but somebody he knows and is friendly with. So instead, he takes this kid under his arm, leads him to a tavern, buys him a meal, maybe gives him a few coins. Or he could still decide to not do any of that if that if he wouldn't do that for someone whom he was actually friendly with.
If the kid used a Dominate Person spell, the Fighter gives the coin (if he failed his Save of course). Based on what you've said (and as I haven't witnessed your game first hand I can only base this on what you've said), Persuasion is just as powerful as Dominate Person.
It all comes down to role-playing and the players allowing themselves to be drawn into the world the DM is creating.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.
I agree.....which is why your concept of giving your fighter his second wind back....AFTER 15 MINUTES, doesn't make any sense with what you just said. If your fighter wanted to heal every 15 minutes, or "give a little boost of heroism" as you called it, then he could. Every 15 minutes, yet you say you can't go beyond at all times.
Additionally, you say that heroism isn't something you can dish out whenever you like, yet the fighter has full control over when he uses it. The point I'm getting at is that it is impossible to eliminate all of the meta in the game, so in your world where you want eliminate meta, how do you explain a fighter that can "boost his heroism" every 15 minutes and once he uses it, he knows he can't do it for another 15 minutes? If this is a function that the fighter can do, and he knows he can do it, since he gets to choose when he uses it, how does he know he can use it, then watch the sun for 15 minutes to pass and go, "Phew now I can access my boost of heroism again!".
Published Subclasses
@Behr On the ocntrary, my group wants to role play more then they wanna fight. they often take 4 sessions to know where to go and take a decision because they love to role play between themselves much more then making a story go forward. but that's besides the point...
you are making claims that its a DM's fault to force choices onto a player, but you have to do that all the time as a DM. exemple of your players who meets a dragon and get hit by its fear aura. how the hell would you portray that to someone who just do not care and take the game as a video game. you'd obviously play the stats, but what if that monster was a splayer, you'd not play it mechanically just because players choices ? that leaves me to think you probably never want PvP in your group and always enforces players into a story of your own without ever letting them out of that story for their own benefits. nor do i think you develop their story like i do. but again, thats besides the ppoint, since this is only my perception, which just like yours is false and based on things i perceive from your writting. but the fact that you hasve to manage emotionnal responses from your players reguardless of the method you use is something different from all DMs. to me that is a fault of you. you actually use the rules only half way without ever trying to justify it or make it immersive. I love immersion and so are my players. they come back to my game cause they wonder what will happen next. they wonder which road their characters will take and they wonder how it will end for them. now my take on them is different from person to person, but it works for them. they role play based on their emotionnal feelings which i change if any control effect happens. thats what control effects do and thats what i use. the rules as written. you said it yourself, its working right from the stats, so i wonder why you take his side when you said exactly the same thing i did. when my players are charmed or controlled, i dont remove their agency by picking up the charcater. i simply tell them their new emotionnal state. i like to think a vampire charm is making the people fall in love with them. as such thats what i say to the person. the very same is true for a succubus but it goes further as it is more in line with domination. all of these is the same, you remove player agency. but i don't i simply let the player role play it by telling them new emotionnal states which they pick up greatly. because they do want to role play.
now if the players dont want to role play it, like one of my player in that group, he's new to these things and he's the kind of player in real life where nothing scares him. seriously, h'ed run into a wall and wouldn't care. he'd run into a dragon, think... i'm dead... and that would be it. he wouldn't even try to run and all. that very attitude changes the whole dynamic of the group as he tries very hard to be a good guy, but always ends up taking poor decisions. Based on your own mentality that you try to explain to me, that guy you wouldn'T play at all with. that guy you'd ditch, because he'd be so playing himself all the time that he would be ignoring his stats all the time and he would be always low charisma. even if he ever decides to play a sorcerer or a warlock. while me, enforcing my metagaming rule which means a few things... he's learning differences between himself and his character. he's gone higher in role playing in the last year because of it.
its very simple really... the rules are the same may it be for NPC or PC.
just like you said before...
players talk, if they do insight, thats because they wanna know something. i'd be a darn fool and that would be a DM mistake to not let them do insight checks.
the only thing i have rule wise in all my games over the years... i barely ever ask for a check... "The players" have to ask for such things.
so if a player enters a room and never ask for a check to perceive whats inside aside from what my description gave. then that rogue hidding behind the couch will be considered having succeeded in his stealth check. i dont play with passives either, since they are bullshit. why would anyone ever roll if their minimum is 10+ whatever number they have. taking the chance of getting lower is ridiculous. though this is pretty darn close to the take 10 from 3rd edition, so i might do just that.
@squig why would it be flawed ? again, you seem to think heroism is the art of going all out. do you really think a fighter uses his second wind every 15 minutes ? i said he gets it back after a 15 minute rest. but to me walking from point A to B at a nomral pace fits that bill. Ever worked in a very stressful environment like a restaurant. ever asked the servers if they'd run all day long like that or if the rushes are the only exception where they need to go over their limit to be on time. that's what im talking about. you're still taking that fighter second wind as a mechanical thing. and again put it simply as such. but mechanical things dont have any meaning in D&D. the reason they put short rest and long rest is to give your player a sense of, i have to rest. what if your players never want to rest, and always want to go for the bbeg all the time. what if they think we're screwed if he does this and that bad guy needs to be stopped. yet your bbeg is barely sdtarted on his plans and is still int he let's talk phase. going on like that should be allowed, but it should also be tiring. which is the point of rest anyway. characters gets tired all the time because they go beyond their powers and limitations.
a wizard neds to get back some energies from his environments, so he takes a rest. 15 minutes of staying still and doing incantations to replenish his arcane energies is fine by me.
a fighter ignoring his wounds and going all out on the next round with his second wind is the same. after the fighter or even in the fight, he might just realise his wounds weren't as big he thought they'd be. realising that he needs to breath it out instead of being stressed out. contrary to what people believe fighting is never as easy as it seem. you get stressed you get nervous, you do mistakes. the same is true for everyone. its easy to just put words on whats happenning around that fighter, he might be himself limiting his own abilities. knowing full damn well that he can't take a breather every single time. because he knows his own limits, he knows his own constitution. he might just keep it until it actually matters.
Fighter excels at limited abilities, they know they can break their limits to achieve an effect but they also know they can't go on breaking those limits on a daily basis every single hours. they know they will need rest at some point. just like any of us in real life, we need breathers once in a while. we're not machines that lacks exaustions.
this leads me to tell you this much...
if you have trouble managing those rests and those abilities... think of this way, allow your players to go beyond their limit, but everytime they use their limit over and over to try to be heroic. give them exhaustion levels. because thats what those features are, very tiring effects. that fighter may gain back some HPs for heroism, but he's ignoring the fact that he is wounded and dieing slowly. he wouldn'T be doing that all the time.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
It is entirely possible that we are agreeing on certain aspects of play but neither of can make it clear enough in words to explain what we are talking about. Without seeing exactly how each other play, it's difficult to be sure we are putting our "visions" out there. At this point, I'd say just drop it as this discussion isn't going anywhere. I can tell that you aren't understanding what I'm trying to say and I'm sure you probably feel the same about me.
If you're gonna be a bear...be a Grizzly.