A rant on ASF

[Raven Crowking]

It's the pretense that armor interferes with gestures even when it's not impeding the one arm required to make them that really gets my goat.

I can understand that.

In fact, I believe that I stated earlier that I might steal your Concentration check idea for use in my own game. I am not 100% convinced; there have been some good counter-arguments in this thread.

However, I object to the argument that reflecting the flavour of previous generations of the game in and of itself is something bad. The arguement that this or that is a "sacred cow" or merely serves to "add flavour" to the game does not actually say anything about its relative worth within the game system. I am personally undertaking a huge modification of the ruleset. This does not reflect the value of the original ruleset; it reflects my personal preferences.

It's not the mechanic, it's how it's presented. Isn't the vancian magic of D&D much easier to swallow now that they call what wizards to preparing spells rather than memorizing spells?

Nah. I understood what was meant either way.



RC

 

[fuindordm]

However, I object to the argument that reflecting the flavour of previous generations of the game in and of itself is something bad. The arguement that this or that is a "sacred cow" or merely serves to "add flavour" to the game does not actually say anything about its relative worth within the game system. I am personally undertaking a huge modification of the ruleset. This does not reflect the value of the original ruleset; it reflects my personal preferences.

Yes, I agree completely. The original flavor was that demihumans only could cast in armor, and my dislike of that is purely personal preference. One person's sacred cow is another's sacred bull. ;-)

The second edition conceit that it was a purely elven tradition was slightly more palatable if poorly implemented (only possible in elven chain). I know a DM who kept that flavor into third edition by making a feat chain to alleviate ASF available to elves only.

(spell preparation vs. memorization)

Nah. I understood what was meant either way.

RC

I really appreciated the change, and it did lead to some slight modifications of the rules that helped the wizard immensely. They can now prepare their spells anytime during the day, and choose to leave some slots open. It's true that the mechanics are almost identical, but the change in language freed imaginations a little bit, I think. I always heard endless complaints on the idea of spell memorization from my players...

Ben

 

[radferth]

I am an old man, (not that old, but been gaming awhile). I my games wizards don't wear armor (I agree that the arcane spell failure is a clunky mechanic, but few enough mages wear armor that I don't bother to worry about it), and they memorize their spells, and we like it that way. I actually can't imagine wanting to wear armor as a high level mage. My protection spells are good enough, and I usually don't play in a campaign were magic items can be easily bought off the shelf. Even if they were, I'd probably grab a few protective spell wands or scrolls rather than wear armor, gives me the excuse to avoid combat. (While playing a low-level thief with a heavy crossbow, one of the fighting players told me a light crossbow would be more effective, since I spend so much time hiding behind the pillar reloading. I replied for you the point of combat is to kill things, for me the point of combat is to hide behind the pillar and reload.)

If you want armored wizards: house rule, *ding* (magic wand sound), its done. I like my magic systems inconsistant, cause everything else is, and why should magic be different.

 

[Merlion]

However, I object to the argument that reflecting the flavour of previous generations of the game in and of itself is something bad. The arguement that this or that is a "sacred cow" or merely serves to "add flavour" to the game does not actually say anything about its relative worth within the game system

The trouble is, theres a lot of stuff in D&D that has little relative worth within the game system, or is illogical (within the context of the game) or that applies needless restrictions on character concepts, or that in some cases is simply unbalanced, that is their just because its a "sacred cow", and that the designers insist on continuing to include, and work around, and add more material related to it, for that reason...simply because it was in earlier versions of the game, not because it needs to be there or does anything useful.


Thats what I object to

 

[Raven Crowking]

The trouble is, theres a lot of stuff in D&D that has little relative worth within the game system, or is illogical (within the context of the game) or that applies needless restrictions on character concepts, or that in some cases is simply unbalanced, that is their just because its a "sacred cow", and that the designers insist on continuing to include, and work around, and add more material related to it, for that reason...simply because it was in earlier versions of the game, not because it needs to be there or does anything useful.

Game rules always restrict on the basis of flavour, as even the most cursory examination of various games will show. For example, if you were playing in a world based off of Tolkein & other classic fantasy authors/mythologies (i.e., D&D), and I had a really good idea for a superhero, should the rules allow me to gain intrinsic super-strength, hypersonic speed, and X-ray vision? At any point in the game? Should Monopoly allow the Shoe and the Hat to get married in order to raise a family? Should d20 Conan support PCs carrying automatic weapons?

All games restrict the rules on the basis of flavour.

All games also relax restrictions on the basis of flavour. In D&D 3.X, the fairly homogenous race/class structure creates a fairly bland homogenous flavour. This is one of the things that, I think, people who complain about the "video game" feel of 3.X are reacting to.

As soon as we admit that the rules are going to be restrictive on the basis of flavour, the remaining questions relate to what types of restrictions and what types of flavour.

Any attempt to do "generic fantasy" is, imho, bound to fail to some degree. I am not certain that "generic" fantasy exists, unless by "generic" we mean "mostly bland". Even something like GURPS (surely is the closest to a detailed generic rpg system out there) cannot help but create a series of flavour options based upon what is presented in the rules. "Legacy flavour" is neither inherently better or worse than any other kind of flavour.

The D&D "Legacy flavour" is based upon the game's origins as a tabletop miniatures wargame, coupled with ideas culled from Lovecraft, classic fantasy novels, fairy tales, and mythology. Older versions of D&D actively attempted to provide a form of "retroactive continuity," coming up with reasons why things occurred in these stories the way that they did. Hence, LG paladins were based off of specific models, as were the original ranger, monk, dwarf, elf, and so on. Many things which, at first glance, seem to be surely created just for the game, on further examination come from another source. The 1st Edition DMG actually included a small reading list of game influences.

You can call these things "sacred cows" if you like, but doing so does not actually provide a rational argument against them.

If you are looking for a system that does not restrict character concept, perhaps you would be happier with GURPS or FUDGE.

If you were looking for something that is perfectly balanced for all players, and doesn't make choices on the basis of flavour, I don't know of anything that I could recommend. At least some small part of reasoning behind Rule 0 is that individual groups/campaigns will require specific flavour rules and/or rules to balance style of play.


RC

 

[Merlion]

You can call these things "sacred cows" if you like, but doing so does not actually provide a rational argument against them.

It does if its the only reason they are present.

The D&D "Legacy flavour" is based upon the game's origins as a tabletop miniatures wargame, coupled with ideas culled from Lovecraft, classic fantasy novels, fairy tales, and mythology. Older versions of D&D actively attempted to provide a form of "retroactive continuity," coming up with reasons why things occurred in these stories the way that they did. Hence, LG paladins were based off of specific models, as were the original ranger, monk, dwarf, elf, and so on. Many things which, at first glance, seem to be surely created just for the game, on further examination come from another source. The 1st Edition DMG actually included a small reading list of game influences.

A lot of the D&D Legacy flavour is base don Gary Gygax's personal tastes. And he's not longer involved with the game to speak of, so I dont understand clinging to those things.

"Legacy flavour" is neither inherently better or worse than any other kind of flavour.

It is if its internally and/or logical inconsistent or if it creates mechanical unbalance

Any attempt to do "generic fantasy" is, imho, bound to fail to some degree. I am not certain that "generic" fantasy exists, unless by "generic" we mean "mostly bland". Even something like GURPS (surely is the closest to a detailed generic rpg system out there) cannot help but create a series of flavour options based upon what is presented in the rules

Yes, thats all true. But its also true that D&D, especially from 3.0 onwards, does try/is trying to be "generic fantasy", it is trying to allow people to pretty much create whatever kind of characters and worlds they want."options not restrictions" was/is a byword of 3.x BUT, it is simulatanouesly trying to "stay D&D" which is to say, stay the D&D that Gygax created over two decades ago by leaving in various "sacred cows" and "legacy" thises and thats.

And that in itself is annoying. The intrinsic contradiction they have going on. Its particularly irriating to me because in the changeover to 3rd edition they already changed a great many things that many people considered "sacred cows" or a part of what makes D&D D&D.

I'd like them to start basing things purely off what works well, whats balanced, and what people want...and if that means keeping a "sacred cow", then fine...but dont keep them just for their own sake, especially not ones that are simply illogical restrictions or contradictions left over from the preferences of the original designers


You keep talking about all games making choices or restrictions on the basis of flavour, but to me the flavour should be a basic one. D&D is a heroic fantasy game. That should be the only flavour the designers worry about, not flavour based on the preferences of the original designers, who never even really intended the game for broad sale or use by other people.

And yes many other games do restrict based on flavour, but its also obvious how each of them is going to be. Dungeons and Dragons looks on the outside like basic broad range swords and sorcerery fantasy...but there are a number of things that are common in stories and ideas with that kind of flavour that can be diffaculty to do in D&D, due to legacy restrictions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, thats all true. But its also true that D&D, especially from 3.0 onwards, does try/is trying to be "generic fantasy", it is trying to allow people to pretty much create whatever kind of characters and worlds they want."options not restrictions" was/is a byword of 3.x BUT, it is simulatanouesly trying to "stay D&D" which is to say, stay the D&D that Gygax created over two decades ago by leaving in various "sacred cows" and "legacy" thises and thats.

And that in itself is annoying. The intrinsic contradiction they have going on. Its particularly irriating to me because in the changeover to 3rd edition they already changed a great many things that many people considered "sacred cows" or a part of what makes D&D D&D.

I'd like them to start basing things purely off what works well, whats balanced, and what people want...and if that means keeping a "sacred cow", then fine...but dont keep them just for their own sake, especially not ones that are simply illogical restrictions or contradictions left over from the preferences of the original designers

If we are talking about, say ASF, how exactly is it "illogical"? There is nothing illogical in the mechanic itself. There is nothing illogical in stating that different types of spellcasters require different types of gestures when casting spells with somatic components. Nor is there anything illogical in stating that a spellcaster does not need two hands to cast spells (i.e., he needs only one hand free) some types of restriction automatically limit spellcasting, causing a set chance of failure. Admittedly, this should open up invention of armors that do not restrict spellcasters....but, then, there is nothing in the rules that says this cannot be done. What the rules describe are specific types of armors, and the effects of wearing those specific types of armors.

Wizards not wearing armor is not particularly Gygaxian, either. As pointed out earlier in this thread,

The D&D "Legacy flavour" is based upon the game's origins as a tabletop miniatures wargame, coupled with ideas culled from Lovecraft, classic fantasy novels, fairy tales, and mythology. Older versions of D&D actively attempted to provide a form of "retroactive continuity," coming up with reasons why things occurred in these stories the way that they did. Hence, LG paladins were based off of specific models, as were the original ranger, monk, dwarf, elf, and so on. Many things which, at first glance, seem to be surely created just for the game, on further examination come from another source. The 1st Edition DMG actually included a small reading list of game influences.

With some few exceptions, wizard-type characters in mythology, classic fantasy novels, folklore, and fairy tales do not wear armour. Of course, some current fantasy novels have different ideas, as they are influenced by different things (such as modern culture, video games, etc.).​

I suggest that, perhaps, "what people want" is not so uniform as you may think. Even I would hesitate to claim that what I want and what people want are the same thing, and I am fairly unabashed in my hubris. If nothing else, this thread (and many, many more on EnWorld and off) should serve to demonstrate that there is no monolithic "what people want."

You say that what you'd like from D&D is a "basic" flavour. I say that such a basic flavour is exactly the opposite of what D&D should offer. Basic flavours are bland and boring, imho...and, if sales figures are anything to go by, in the opinions of the majority of rpgers. GURPS (for example) is great, but it has a "basic" flavour. Compare sales of GURPS to D&D (in any incarnation) and I think you'll find that basic flavour is simply not what people want.

RC



P.S.: BTW, calling something a "sacred cow" is not a rational argument even if the thing is only present for flavour reasons, and if those flavour reasons began with an earlier system. All you are saying is that you fail to see the value in the thing (which is subjective) and/or that you don't enjoy the flavour (which is also subjective). You can argue like that. You can probably even convince a number of people (given P.T. Barnum's infamous statement that there's one born every minute). But the argument still will not be a rational one, simply because it is not based on an objective evaluation.

RC