Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 6049574" data-attributes="member: 50304"><p>See, I think that's not entirely accurate.</p><p></p><p><strong>Fighting Men</strong> have been saddled with the Simulationist weighting since the war-game days before D&D. When Magicians got introduced the dedication to Simulationist elements went right out the window because, hey, <strong>MAGIC</strong>. With the narrative onus to transform the Fighting Man PC from a wargame pawn to an adventure protagonist things evolved. Abstraction migrated down from the unit-based level to the skirmish-based / individual combatant level gradually.</p><p></p><p>The biggest flaw of 3.X was that it was too focused on Simulation in <em>some</em> situations but nowhere near even-handed about it. Magic was hand-waved, while all things martial were compartmentalized into minutia that was often self-defeating. On the one hand, it appeared liberating because you didn't have to play "DM May I?" with a Fighter to do anything than make an abstract "attack" with your weapon. On the other hand it was actually more restrictive because now you were shackled to the "visible buttons" that were often-times mechanics with terrible game balance.</p><p></p><p>What made it even worse was that it tried to be pointlessly universal in its mechanics. Storm Giants used the same Sunder functionality as Fighters. Dragons used the same Magic as sorcerers. Rogues got hosed on Sneak Attack due the "no anatomy" rule by like half the monsters in the monster manual. And then there was the Magicians vs. Grogs breakdown that really poisoned the game. All of that could be justified by a single-minded devotion to Simulation, but it really took a toll on game play and drama.</p><p></p><p>Sure, mechanics need to pay attention to simulation (Is it intuitive? Is it consistent?) right alongside game concerns (Is it fun? Is it balanced?) and narrative concerns (Is it dramatic? Is it germane?). They just don't need to go down the rabbit-hole of 3.X where Martial folks are slaves to real-world physics while the Casters play Calvin-ball because *handwave* <strong>MAGIC</strong>. D&D has always kept up a pretense of meta-physics behind magic, but never imposed the kind of restrictions a strict simulation models puts on non-caster actions - just a few token gestures.</p><p></p><p>Frankly, I don't think the solution is to impose more rigidity on Magic. I don't want to go back to a huge variety of casting times, tracking all individual spell components, nor do I want to see new mechanics about appeasing cleric deities, checks to see how long it takes to read spell components, or modifiers based on ley lines and lunar cycles. I think we'd be fine with just a little more acceptance to the idea that D&D Martial characters are not "mundanes" stuck in a real-world simulation, but rather protagonists in a story that can take liberties by veering off into "action-movie physics" (or even flat-out Wuxia if the dial is set that high).</p><p></p><p>Real human beings never survive that "walk / jump away from fireball explosion" scenes you see in action movies, but sufficiently tough D&D characters can do it all the time. Sometimes you just let physics take a holiday and hang a lampshade on it, even if it doesn't pass muster on Mythbusters.</p><p></p><p>"Cool guys don't look at explosions."</p><p></p><p>- Marty Lund</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mlund, post: 6049574, member: 50304"] See, I think that's not entirely accurate. [b]Fighting Men[/b] have been saddled with the Simulationist weighting since the war-game days before D&D. When Magicians got introduced the dedication to Simulationist elements went right out the window because, hey, [b]MAGIC[/b]. With the narrative onus to transform the Fighting Man PC from a wargame pawn to an adventure protagonist things evolved. Abstraction migrated down from the unit-based level to the skirmish-based / individual combatant level gradually. The biggest flaw of 3.X was that it was too focused on Simulation in [I]some[/I] situations but nowhere near even-handed about it. Magic was hand-waved, while all things martial were compartmentalized into minutia that was often self-defeating. On the one hand, it appeared liberating because you didn't have to play "DM May I?" with a Fighter to do anything than make an abstract "attack" with your weapon. On the other hand it was actually more restrictive because now you were shackled to the "visible buttons" that were often-times mechanics with terrible game balance. What made it even worse was that it tried to be pointlessly universal in its mechanics. Storm Giants used the same Sunder functionality as Fighters. Dragons used the same Magic as sorcerers. Rogues got hosed on Sneak Attack due the "no anatomy" rule by like half the monsters in the monster manual. And then there was the Magicians vs. Grogs breakdown that really poisoned the game. All of that could be justified by a single-minded devotion to Simulation, but it really took a toll on game play and drama. Sure, mechanics need to pay attention to simulation (Is it intuitive? Is it consistent?) right alongside game concerns (Is it fun? Is it balanced?) and narrative concerns (Is it dramatic? Is it germane?). They just don't need to go down the rabbit-hole of 3.X where Martial folks are slaves to real-world physics while the Casters play Calvin-ball because *handwave* [b]MAGIC[/b]. D&D has always kept up a pretense of meta-physics behind magic, but never imposed the kind of restrictions a strict simulation models puts on non-caster actions - just a few token gestures. Frankly, I don't think the solution is to impose more rigidity on Magic. I don't want to go back to a huge variety of casting times, tracking all individual spell components, nor do I want to see new mechanics about appeasing cleric deities, checks to see how long it takes to read spell components, or modifiers based on ley lines and lunar cycles. I think we'd be fine with just a little more acceptance to the idea that D&D Martial characters are not "mundanes" stuck in a real-world simulation, but rather protagonists in a story that can take liberties by veering off into "action-movie physics" (or even flat-out Wuxia if the dial is set that high). Real human beings never survive that "walk / jump away from fireball explosion" scenes you see in action movies, but sufficiently tough D&D characters can do it all the time. Sometimes you just let physics take a holiday and hang a lampshade on it, even if it doesn't pass muster on Mythbusters. "Cool guys don't look at explosions." - Marty Lund [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
Top