Where is my Freaking Mule?!

[Rechan]

This is a single statement about a rule set that does not invoke an edition war.

By saying neither 3e and 4e do little but combat well starts an edition war?!

My entire point is that D&D has never done non-combat well, breaking down each edition to reinforce my point.

And the thread has been an edition war! Long before I got here. My point is that saying one does it better than the other is an argument over trees rather than the forest.

 

[Rechan]

Fine then I guess my point is... I find it just as hard to believe that you have no idea why this could be important to others... especially since the 1e comment, and the fact that if desired... any of the editions can be played this way... as you find it surprising that some people do want these things.

It's not that I have "no idea why". It's just surprising to see it, and so starkly presented. It's a "culture shock" in a way. Knowing the opinions exist and seeing it strongly debated in a 14 page thread are two different animals, you know?

But really, too much is getting read into the comment. It's not an attack on a game style. Just a startled obsertaion, a "huh, game economics really are important to some people".

 

[Rechan]

You may play D&D this way. Since Zaran is talking about my game, it should be pretty obvious that I dont. If you have nothing to add because you dont play the game that way, please dont add anything.

1) The post you quoted had little to do with how I play D&D. The post you quoted was about the limitations of D&D to facilitate some forms of play. This topic has become relevant - all the way back on page 11 where Hussar was taltking about how the rules got in the way of him playing a Naval game, and Gnomeworks talking about playing a non-combatant in D&D.

2) This thread has been about much more than just what's going on in your game.

 

[Imaro]

By saying neither 3e and 4e do little but combat well starts an edition war?!

My entire point is that D&D has never done non-combat well, breaking down each edition to reinforce my point.

And the thread has been an edition war! Long before I got here. My point is that saying one does it better than the other is an argument over trees rather than the forest.

As subjective as this absolute statement is (never and well are certainly in the eye of the beholder.)... even if I agreed with it that still in no way discounts degrees (something you seem to be missing the nuances of), especially since in talking about editions many assume we are talking about evolutionary steps to make the game better.

If there's no difference between the ways different editons handle non-combat... then why continue to change, refine and experiment with such things as non-combat proficiencies, non-combat skills, non-combat feats, skill challenges or... well you get the point I hope. I don't think it's as simple as saying "they all suck, so why even differentiate between them?" for most people. I think some may prefer certain methods of dealing with non-combat over others... but to try and lump them all together as "suck" seems shortsighted and dismissive at best. I mean honestly if that is how you feel, why come into a thread that's discussing them to post?

 

[Rechan]

As subjective as this absolute statement is (never and well are certainly in the eye of the beholder.)... even if I agreed with it that still in no way discounts degrees (something you seem to be missing the nuances of), especially since in talking about editions many assume we are talking about evolutionary steps to make the game better.

if I wasn't aware of the nuances, then would I not have given examples of how the editions differed? I did. Primarily 3e deviated from 1e/2e by being better. 4e lacks the profession/craft skills, but injects skill challengse.

The nuance is there, but it's again, like saying that "This does it less worse than this". You mention degrees - the degree that it may be better, but it's not by much. Which is thus a false dichotomy.

To put it another way, let's say that Non-Combat Rules is a scale from 1 to 10. 1 being "none" and 10 being "Social splatbooks", we could rank the systems in terms of their non-combat support.

1e/2e Rank: 1
3e Rank: 4
4e Rank: 3

A rank of 4 is better than a 3 is true, but it's not a great improvement.

You're right, I am discounting the "evolution of the game" by way of houserules and development because I think that, for those trying to do that, it's more work and more a headache than the result. It would be taking the "Social Skills Ranking" from a 4 to a 4.5. Instead, why not just look outside of D&D to facilitate those needs, where it's a 7 or 8?

 

[Imaro]

if I wasn't aware of the nuances, then would I not have given examples of how the editions differed? I did. Primarily 3e deviated from 1e/2e by being better. 4e lacks the profession/craft skills, but injects skill challengse.

The nuance is there, but it's again, like saying that "This does it less worse than this". You mention degrees - the degree that it may be better, but it's not by much. Which is thus a false dichotomy

Isn't this just your opinion? Maybe that's the problem many people are having with what you are posting... you're stating it like it's a fact that everyone thinks all editions of D&D handle non-combat stuff badly, when in fact that isn't the case... just like it's not the case that everyone considers the degrees to which it is handled in various editions as objectively "not by much". This is all subjective.

To put it another way, let's say that Non-Combat Rules is a scale from 1 to 10. 1 being "none" and 10 being "Social splatbooks", we could rank the systems in terms of their non-combat support.

1e/2e Rank: 1
3e Rank: 4
4e Rank: 3

A rank of 4 is better than a 3 is true, but it's not a great improvement.

And what if I say 4e is a Rank: 6 and 3e a Rank: 2 or vice versa? Can you in any way prove you're measurements are more correct than mine? What if I say for me 4e is an 8 but BECMI is a 4... am I wrong? In other words, you're opinnion != universal truth. And honestly there seems like there's quite a bit of difference between a Rank:1 and a Rank: 3

You're right, I am discounting the "evolution of the game" by way of houserules and development because I think that, for those trying to do that, it's more work and more a headache than the result. It would be taking the "Social Skills Ranking" from a 4 to a 4.5. Instead, why not just look outside of D&D to facilitate those needs, where it's a 7 or 8?

I didn't say anything about houserules... I'm talking about the evolution of the game throughout editions. IMO, I won't be pleased if AD&D 2e ranks as a 6 for me in terms of how non-combat is handled but 3.5 and 4e only rank as a 4.... IMO, a later edition should improve upon things like combat, non-combat etc. Now of course what I like and consider "good" ways to handle non-combat is again... totally subjective.

As far as looking outside D&D... for better or worse it's the flagship product that most people will be introduced to roleplaying through... which also means it's assumptions, rules, how it's run, etc. will also set the playstyles, expectations, etc. of many new players. So I definitely want it to strive to encompass diversity even if that means creating optional books, rules sets, etc. that cater to different styles. If it fits your style already why are you complaining or even concerned about what I want?

 

[Lanefan]

Let's say I want to run a game where Everyone is a Diplomat/Courtier in a king's court. I couldn't attempt it with 1e, period, nor 2e.

Well, in 2e you certainly could. Start with the Birthright setting (which almost could have been designed for just this very thing), remove some combat, add some political intrigue, set the goals and "adventures" to reflect this, have the characters be diplomats and generals instead of field troops, and drop the puck.

Lan-"but do diplomats need mules, is the question"-efan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, in 2e you certainly could. Start with the Birthright setting (which almost could have been designed for just this very thing), remove some combat, add some political intrigue, set the goals and "adventures" to reflect this, have the characters be diplomats and generals instead of field troops, and drop the puck.

Lan-"but do diplomats need mules, is the question"-efan

To put the best possible spin on Rechan's assertion, you couldn't easily run a Court-centric campaign in 1Ed or 2Ed right out of the box (not without a LOT of work on your part). You'd definitely want to use the rules of an expansion that came pretty late to the party.

 

[Hussar]

That's probably true Lanefan, but, I think does speak a long way to Rechan's point. Birthright, from what I understood, was a pretty serious modification of the 2e system - kinda like how there are a bajillion d20 mods. It might use the base mechanics but stock 2e and Birthright were not particularly compatible.

So, if you want to play a fantasy game with lots of economics, why stick to D&D? There are a HUGE number of d20 variants out there for this sort of thing. Why complain that D&D doesn't do something (or at least doesn't do it well) when there are all sorts of tools that DO do it well, but, just happen to not be D&D?

 

[Rechan]

Isn't this just your opinion?

Isn't everything opinion? Right down to "D&D needs mules"? There's no "objective truth" or "facts" about what's good or bad in RPGs. Stating it's my opinion is a bit redundant.

And, had I done so, would it have made a difference? I peppered "in my game" and "what I care about" in my post and you still thought I was talking about what Heroic Fantasy is and isn't.

Besides. I'm not just stating an opinion, I'm making a case. I'm arguing to convince you of something. If you disagree, that's fine, but I'm still posing an argument.

And what if I say 4e is a Rank: 6 and 3e a Rank: 2 or vice versa?

Then I say "You're messing up my example of me trying to explain my argument".

If we can't even agree whether D&D has ever done non-combat well or not, then there's no point to discussing it, is there? Since our opinions differ so much, there's no common ground to be had.

I didn't say anything about houserules... I'm talking about the evolution of the game throughout editions.

I don't understand the point you're making then.

If the thread isn't about overcoming the hurdle, then what's the whole point? And what's wrong with saying "D&D doesn't do it well" if the whole thread is about going over what D&D had one?

As far as looking outside D&D... for better or worse it's the flagship product that most people will be introduced to roleplaying through... which also means it's assumptions, rules, how it's run, etc. will also set the playstyles, expectations, etc. of many new players. So I definitely want it to strive to encompass diversity even if that means creating optional books, rules sets, etc. that cater to different styles.

You honestly think that a 3pp booklet or a thread on the internet is going to change how all new players play the game?

If it fits your style already why are you complaining or even concerned about what I want?

First, D&D doesn't fit my style for some things. It's not my favorite system. I just go to a different system when I want those needs met.

Second, I'm here because I interpret that there's a problem (you want something you aren't getting) and I want to help those that have it.

To use an analogy: what this thread looks to me is that the OP, and others who like this sort of play, is hitting a wall. And I see trying to make Extensive houserules, or hope that a 3pp will come in, is like trying to just break a hole in the wall, dig a tunnel under that wall, or hope someone comes along and builds a door in the wall. No matter what, that's going to be frustrating, not very smooth (the jagged edges, the crumbly wall, the collapsing tunnel), and eventually disappointing (the system is unsatisfying, it only works for one person but doesn't fill the needs for another, 3pp just don't do it despite folks wanting it).

I, a passerby on the street, see this problem that is being had, and my motivation is to say "Hey, just go down a few blocks (to another system) where that wall isn't in your way". So that you don't have the problem that is very evident to me in this thread.

My intention is not to come in here, kick over sandcastles and say "Haha your sandcastle sucks". It's to say "you're having trouble building a sandcastle with poor tools (a system that doesn't support the type of play you desire), try some different tools".