Farewell to thee D&D

[AWizardInDallas]

You know, there is a great deal of discussion about 3E/3.5E here, and not even about Pathfinder. Sadly, most of the talk is focused in the threads where people are screaming at each other about how whichever edition is better or worse than the other. If people are really interested in their edition, they might spend that energy being creative and discussing various ideas regarding their edition instead of tearing down the other one or trying to defend their own. I mean, is someone's mind being changed by the 100th iteration of "Your edition sucks!" "NO! YOUR edition sucks!"

I was replying to someone else who didn't understand Celtavian's position. I didn't tear anything down or scream nor did I try to persuade anyone about editions.

 

[racoffin]

I was replying to someone else who didn't understand Celtavian's position. I didn't tear anything down or scream nor did I try to persuade anyone about editions.

I apologize if it seemed I was pointing at you directly. I used the term "people" to indicate the myriad of posters that have littered the various posts engaging in the behavior I mentioned.

Again, apologies for any implied criticism.

 

[Goumindong]

Okay, let's get this out of the way: One True Way-ism is idiotic.

Its a good thing i am not advocating a "one true way", simply explaining the way it is.

Says you. Others would not say so. The PC paladin is important in the sense that he is whose story is being followed at the moment; that does not, from an in-world perspective, make him more important than the NPC paladin.

True, but its irrelevant. Because there is no "in world perspective" there is only a DM and a DMs players when you play DnD. No one else exists. The "20th level paladin" is created entirely so that the players can interact with him/her and/or aspire to be like him/her and/or have some other effect on the players.

Clearly level has an impact on the game world itself, as a character with a higher level is capable of more, is more resistant to damage in general, and has a better chance of performing tasks. As such, level does exist, though not necessarily in a readily-determined fashion.

No, level does not exist, you are misunderstanding the way the game is set up.

"Level" is a construct that NPCs and Monsters have to make it easier for DMs to find appropriate challenges for their players. It is nothing more. When you want a harder challenge you use a higher level. If you want something that will kill them, an even higher level. If you want a cake walk, you use a lower level. If you want lots of guys that go down fast but still a threat, you use minions. If you want a few guys who are really strong, you use elites. If you want one guy who is amazingly strong, you use a solo.

Outside of the combat with your players, these creatures have no stats, have no roles, and are only what the DM wants. They do what the DM wants when the DM wants because of the effect that the DM wants them to have on the players.

When you're playing, you won't know that a guy is a "20th level paladin". You will know what he looks like, how strong he is, and will know about how much ass he kicks when he kicks some ass or others talk about how much he kicks ass. His strength, abilities, items, stats, powers etc are all amorphous until he comes in contact with the players and shows them off(unless the players get some rumor like, "I heard he enthralled an entire group of orcs with his word alone, then knocked them over with a wave of his hand!" which might describe some of the "powers" the guy has)

All that work defining the paladin is worthless if you aren't using him in combat against the PCs. Because outside of combat with the PCs he acts exactly as you need him to act when you need him to act for the reasons you need him to act because you, the DM, said so.

I.E. 20th level paladins don't exist. In fact, if you were to fight the guy as a "challenge" he, as a 20th level Paladin could not even be statted as a 20th level paladin NPC or PC. Because if he was, it would be impossible for him to be a proper fight for your party(either his attacks/defenses will be too high because he will be way above your level, or he will be a push-over). He would have to be statted as a lower level solo NPC/PC.

edit: And similarly, if you came across this guy later in your career where he was weak compared to you, and he and his 20 paladin buddies came to stop your nefarious plan, you would not be able to stat him as a level 20 paladin, because your party at level 30 wouldn't even be bothered by him and his friends wiffing 19/20 attacks against you. You would have to stat them as a level 30 minion for that fight, or 5-10 level 26-30 normals. Because otherwise the fight would be boring, pointless and would suck. And no one likes boring pointless fights that suck.

edit2: To put it even simpler, "Paladin" is a construct that players use to define their powers and how they advance through the game. Nothing more, and nothing less. I have a player who is playing a monk. With daggers and shruikens on an unaltered rogue class because that is how he wanted his monk to play. And the only thing his rogue class determines is how he resolves conflicts with the various encounters and challenges that face he and the rest of the party.

So yea, you and he are wrong, have no clue what you are talking about and don't have a grasp on how games are supposed to be played and not read.

Ah, of course, D&D is all about killing things and taking their stuff. I see that you have a very sophisticated approach to gaming.

Cut the One True Way crap. It's stupid and childish.

If you want to have a game where players rule kingdoms it will not be DnD. It will not be any edition of DnD. Because DnD is not that game. I suppose you could indeed play DnD with only skill challenges as 5 players and a DM sit and each do individual challenges while the others sit and wait.

No, DnD is, has, and will always be a game about a bunch of heroes getting together and solving problems at the same time. A bunch of heroes getting together and solving problems while they are all not anywhere near each other is not fun. It leaves people sitting idle while others do stuff. It works for books because there are no actual players involved(E.G. if you had to define who was a "player" in LotR the only players would be Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas [and maybe Merry and Pippin, statted up after Boromir bit it] since they are the only characters that do not spend significant time doing other things away from everyone else)

As someone else said. DnD is not Merchants and Mavens, you can make it be like that well enough, but its not that game. Its not Kings and Fiefdoms either. Its Dungeons and Dragons, its about a bunch of heroes who get together and solve problems together.

No, good sir, you simply seem incapable of comprehending the idea that someone out there might not interpret the game exactly the same way you do. Not everyone plays D&D as a game of "kill things and take their stuff." Some people want something somewhat more immersive and complicated and simulationist. If you don't, that's fine, but don't tell people they don't understand RPGs when they don't see gaming in the exact same light that you do.

It has nothing to do with "killing things and taking their stuff" it has to do with a fundamental misunderstanding that DnD is a game where 4-6 people sit down and play a game where one of them talks about the world they are in and the other 3-5 interact with it and they all flesh it out together. The person I am responding to seems to think that DnD is a game where the world is run through a computer simluation and the DM simply is there to be a computer for his friends, to design a plot then input it into the formula, calculate the statistics and wait for the players to solve it or die trying.

That is fundamentally not what DnD is, its a game played between people where they are collectively crafting a story. The only parts of that story that are contested are what happens when the players will conflicts with the DM's will and so these are the only rules that exist. Because you don't need rules when players and DM are in agreement, you don't need rules to define the world until the players and DM are in conflict about that part of the world.

Celtavian thinks you do, and he is objectively wrong in his belief that said rules are important. He is reading the RPG for the sake of reading it, and not reading it for the sake of playing it.

That opinion is just awesome, really. It's why I'm posting this response, even!

You're definitely entitled to your stupid opinion

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Exactly. I urge everyone to drop by the 4e Fan Creations and House Rules forum or the 3rd Edition House Rules forum instead.

If you promise to post to some of my (very few) House Rule threads, I might go there again!

 

[Fenes]

If you want to have a game where players rule kingdoms it will not be DnD. It will not be any edition of DnD. Because DnD is not that game. I suppose you could indeed play DnD with only skill challenges as 5 players and a DM sit and each do individual challenges while the others sit and wait.

So, I guess Birthright was not D&D. Please tell all its players to correct their assumptions. And all that "and you get a keep" in 1E was halway to "Not D&D" already.

No, DnD is, has, and will always be a game about a bunch of heroes getting together and solving problems at the same time. A bunch of heroes getting together and solving problems while they are all not anywhere near each other is not fun. It leaves people sitting idle while others do stuff. It works for books because there are no actual players involved(E.G. if you had to define who was a "player" in LotR the only players would be Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas [and maybe Merry and Pippin, statted up after Boromir bit it] since they are the only characters that do not spend significant time doing other things away from everyone else).

Not fun for you. Others might have - shocking, I know - different tastes.

As someone else said. DnD is not Merchants and Mavens, you can make it be like that well enough, but its not that game. Its not Kings and Fiefdoms either. Its Dungeons and Dragons, its about a bunch of heroes who get together and solve problems together.

It's more than that.

It has nothing to do with "killing things and taking their stuff" it has to do with a fundamental misunderstanding that DnD is a game where 4-6 people sit down and play a game where one of them talks about the world they are in and the other 3-5 interact with it and they all flesh it out together. The person I am responding to seems to think that DnD is a game where the world is run through a computer simluation and the DM simply is there to be a computer for his friends, to design a plot then input it into the formula, calculate the statistics and wait for the players to solve it or die trying.

That is fundamentally not what DnD is, its a game played between people where they are collectively crafting a story. The only parts of that story that are contested are what happens when the players will conflicts with the DM's will and so these are the only rules that exist. Because you don't need rules when players and DM are in agreement, you don't need rules to define the world until the players and DM are in conflict about that part of the world.

I think a number of people would say that this storytelling you mention is less D&D, and more like other games. I certainly do not recall "crafting a story" as being the generally agreed-upon baseline of D&D.

Celtavian thinks you do, and he is objectively wrong in his belief that said rules are important. He is reading the RPG for the sake of reading it, and not reading it for the sake of playing it.

You're definitely entitled to your stupid opinion

It's always sad to see people deluding themselves into knowing what others play RPGs for, and into believing they know best.

 

[BronzeDragon]

O.K. Here is where you are failing and failing utterly. First off, lets get semantics out of the way.

1. A 20th level NPC paladin cannot be as important as a players 20th level Paladin doing the same thing. He cannot be because he is not the focus of the game.

Yeah...

2. There is no such thing as a 20th level paladin. Class and level only serve as mechanical constructs by which NPCs and Monsters interact in combat with PCs. It is nothing else. If you want a guy who is a powerful Paladin, then you make him a powerful paladin. And all the time he is doing his thing with only NPC/NPC interaction, he is a powerful paladin doing exactly what you want him to do

The other day, i ran an adventure, and the orcs kicked a guys face in. I didn't need to roll to have the orcs kick a guys face in, because that is retarded, they're NPCs, they all do what I want when i want why i want because I said so. Now, when they interact with players they may or may not be minions, may or may not be elite, or solo or whatever. All of that is just a construct to inform the interaction with the players.

Your players never know the paladins attack bonus, backstory unless you tell them, AC, his powers. They don't need to. All they need to know is that he is strong, and he kicks ass for the Lord Moradin

You seem to be thinking under the misconception that I actually roll every die of every attack between every NPC. My main style being role-playing this would be extremely disruptive to my games.

What I meant by what I said, and you seem to have misunderstood, is that I apply the same rules to the NPCs as I do to the PCs. If I need the NPC Paladin to defend the village against orcs, I will make him high-level enough to do it.

Your approach that the stats are only relevant when the PCs actually directly interact with the NPCs would be fine if the DM himself had a crystal ball that allowed him to predict before the game which NPCs the players would actually directly interact with.

Failing that, you'd better be damn good at coming up with the stats on the fly if your PCs decide to, god forbid, attack the NPC paladin.

I don't focus on them, as you said, because they are not the players, but I give them the same abilities as the players. If they fight alongside the aforementioned paladin, they will find the rules consistent. I won't have to say "the paladin just kills everything".

 

[Goumindong]

You seem to be thinking under the misconception that I actually roll every die of every attack between every NPC. My main style being role-playing this would be extremely disruptive to my games.

What I meant by what I said, and you seem to have misunderstood, is that I apply the same rules to the NPCs as I do to the PCs. If I need the NPC Paladin to defend the village against orcs, I will make him high-level enough to do it.

Your approach that the stats are only relevant when the PCs actually directly interact with the NPCs would be fine if the DM himself had a crystal ball that allowed him to predict before the game which NPCs the players would actually directly interact with.

Failing that, you'd better be damn good at coming up with the stats on the fly if your PCs decide to, god forbid, attack the NPC paladin.

You don't need to roll every attack for an NPC to fall into the trap that you fell into. You only need to believe that the NPC must be statted to deal with whatever he is supposed to have done and not statted to deal with the Players when they engage him.

E.G. if i wanted to have an "invulnverable NPC" i would "stat" him as a really high level normal monster so that the players could never prevail against him(i wouldn't stat him at all, the players would just only hit on a 20 and he would always hit them except on a 1). But, when the time came to fight that NPC and it would have to be a tough fight, i would stat him as a level appropriate solo.

And the DM roughly does have a crystal ball. Because they know

1. What things that are around the PC's can win against
2. What things that are around the PC's will flatten
3. what things that are around that the PC's can't hope to handle.

2 and 3 you don't need to worry about, you just handwave it. 1 you do need to worry about.

You are worrying about 2 and 3 for no good reason, making you take up your precious time when you could be doing something productive and gaining literally no benefit out of it.

I don't focus on them, as you said, because they are not the players, but I give them the same abilities as the players. If they fight alongside the aforementioned paladin, they will find the rules consistent. I won't have to say "the paladin just kills everything".

Why would an NPC paladin have the same powers as a player Paladin? There is no reason to have these rules consistent. What only needs to be consistent is how the NPC feels.

If you want the paladin to kill everything, you can make him do so. If you want him to have to put up a fight, you can make him do so. But he isn't a "level 20 paladin". He is an NPC that is at whatever strength he needs to be for the purpose of whatever encounter you are running.(for instance, its a lot better to stat "big strong NPCs" as lower level solo creatures to show how awesome they are rather than to stat them as higher level normal creatures. Since once you break the +4-5 barrier they become a handwave)

So, I guess Birthright was not D&D. Please tell all its players to correct their assumptions. And all that "and you get a keep" in 1E was halway to "Not D&D" already.

Birthright fundamentally changed the core mechanic of play. And "and you get a keep" has nothing to do with changing the core mechanic of play.

Not fun for you. Others might have - shocking, I know - different tastes.

You like sitting around and doing nothing?

It's more than that.

At its heart of what it does, it is not. Characters get together and solve problems whatever those problems may be.

I think a number of people would say that this storytelling you mention is less D&D, and more like other games. I certainly do not recall "crafting a story" as being the generally agreed-upon baseline of D&D.

The only thing that differs is the depth and level of involvement in the story. What matters is that what the worlds stats are don't matter until that part of the world comes into conflict with the players.

It's always sad to see people deluding themselves into knowing what others play RPGs for, and into believing they know best.

He said it. He is the one complaining that "NPC Farmers can kill ogres in a lucky hit".

 

[GnomeWorks]

Its a good thing i am not advocating a "one true way", simply explaining the way it is.

...

So yea, you and he are wrong, have no clue what you are talking about and don't have a grasp on how games are supposed to be played and not read.

How's that myopia working out for you?

 

[Goumindong]

How's that myopia working out for you?

Pretty well, the glasses help. How is that acute lack of context working out for you?

 

[Samuel Leming]

How's that myopia working out for you?

I mean, really, just report him and move on.

Sam