D&D 5E I hope this isn't 5E...(art that screams "not this, not this!")

[TwinBahamut]

Sorry shidaku, but this is a silly argument that comes up time and time again in different contexts but which makes no sense at all.

conflating ludicrous physical weaponry with magic spells and dragons doesn't make sense.

While D&D has dragons and fireballs, it also has gravity, buildings made out of stone or wood, and all kinds of things which are recognisable from the real world.

Within a fantasy context, we expect and allow for fireballs and dragons - it is part of the twist that makes things fantasy instead of realism. We ALSO expect that certain natural laws apply unless they are explicitly called out - thus someone using an ironing board as a sword is unrealistic in a way which dragons and fireballs are not.

Cheers

I think the argument shouldn't be passed off so lightly as "making no sense"...

I almost don't want to open that can of worms, but this strikes rather close to the heart of the "Fighters can't have nice things" issue that divides the fanbase. Things like gigantic or implausible weapons are a very big part of the fantasy idea of a powerful Fighter. Whether that is the Dragon Slayer sword from the Berserk manga (anytime the main hero Guts meets someone the first time, the first thing they do is note how ridiculously impossible his sword is) to the Gae Bolg of Irish myth (a super death javelin that must be tossed with the wielder's toes).

The warriors of fantasy must fight against creatures like dragons that break every known law of physics. To match that, the dragon slayer must break those same laws as well.

Honestly, the idea that wizards can do whatever they want but fighters are limited by the laws of physics and must act like real world warriors is the one and only dealbreaker for me. If 5E sticks to that philosophy, then I'm gone. I'm not exaggerating when I say that giant swords really are as important to fantasy for me as wizards casting fireballs are.

 

[Lwaxy]

This has nothing to do with magic or non-magic. If a wizard would carry a 10-foot-pole as a staff I'd object, too.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I do not accept, and will not get into an argument saying that in a fantasy universe that wizards and monsters can be completely unhindered by reality, while non-magical characters must be forced to abide by real-world physics. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either the real-world laws of the universe apply to everyone, or they don't. This is the inherent issue I take with anyone who argues that classes don't need to be balanced, because basically they're arguing as you are, that the magic-types can break all the rules, but the non-magic types must be grounded in them.

I'm sorry, I'm just not interested in listening to an argument which is inherently contradictory.

I think the argument shouldn't be passed off so lightly as "making no sense"...

I almost don't want to open that can of worms, but this strikes rather close to the heart of the "Fighters can't have nice things" issue that divides the fanbase. Things like gigantic or implausible weapons are a very big part of the fantasy idea of a powerful Fighter. Whether that is the Dragon Slayer sword from the Berserk manga (anytime the main hero Guts meets someone the first time, the first thing they do is note how ridiculously impossible his sword is) to the Gae Bolg of Irish myth (a super death javelin that must be tossed with the wielder's toes).

The warriors of fantasy must fight against creatures like dragons that break every known law of physics. To match that, the dragon slayer must break those same laws as well.

Honestly, the idea that wizards can do whatever they want but fighters are limited by the laws of physics and must act like real world warriors is the one and only dealbreaker for me. If 5E sticks to that philosophy, then I'm gone. I'm not exaggerating when I say that giant swords really are as important to fantasy for me as wizards casting fireballs are.

It's nothing to do with the 'people hate fighters and love wizards' meme. It might be worth discussing in another thread (although I personally think not; as it illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of realism in fantasy). <= sorry if this statement caused offence, I was giving my opinion and saying that anyone is welcome to start a thread to talk about it

We'll leave this thread to it's original topic though now, eh?

 

[Lwaxy]

Honestly, the idea that wizards can do whatever they want but fighters are limited by the laws of physics and must act like real world warriors is the one and only dealbreaker for me. If 5E sticks to that philosophy, then I'm gone. I'm not exaggerating when I say that giant swords really are as important to fantasy for me as wizards casting fireballs are.

But that's what magical swords are for. Or, if you want non-magic abilities, attack moves that you could not likely pull off in reality.

 

[jbear]

I care. Obviously. Maybe you are suggesting that I am nobody, but I assure you, about everyone I met around here think the same way. The same way I don't want objects falling towards the sky (unless magic is involved) the same way I don't want PCs wearing nonsense clothing... or lack thereof. It may be plausible that a tribe wears nothing at all, but not...that.

Making it realistic within the given parameters seems to be an important thing for a lot of players. Even if we did not have children at our games, I wouldn't want a porn style game.

I think you assume far too much with very little to go on.

Perhaps you missed my point because it was overly coated in hostility. Apologies (*said through gritted teeth).

The image of the elf you refer to as porn was chosen by my wife, not me. She saw it and said "Hey, that's what I want my character to look like."

My point is that many people, who I am assuming are men, are in many cases saying that women find these images bad/wrong/negative/whatever. I am making the point that making such blanket statements about what kind of art women want for their characters is questionable. My wife is a woman. So is her sister. (funnily enough). They both play in my game. Both chose super sexy images for their characters, because that is how they want to imagine them.

How you jumped to "I'm running a porn game of D&D", I'm very unsure, but I suspect you are projecting your own values/hang ups onto me/my game with only a crumb of evidence.

And no, I am not suggesting you are a nobody. If you were a nobody I'd be having this conversation with myself. What I am saying is that anyone so quick to get on the proverbial high horse about 'I won't play in a game if THIS kind of immorality is permitted by the obviously depraved DM!!!' is not the type of fellow I would game with in any case. SO on this point we stand even.

I'd also question the argument "I'm right 'cos everyone around here agrees with me". A pretty shakey argument as well. I don't agree with you for example. Neither would my wife. Or her sister. Or any of the other low lifes who play at my table.

Opinions and ideas are vast and varied. What you see discussed on these boards is only a tiny snapshot of a far bigger picture that doesn't all fit into the frame.

 

[billd91]

I do not accept, and will not get into an argument saying that in a fantasy universe that wizards and monsters can be completely unhindered by reality, while non-magical characters must be forced to abide by real-world physics. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either the real-world laws of the universe apply to everyone, or they don't. This is the inherent issue I take with anyone who argues that classes don't need to be balanced, because basically they're arguing as you are, that the magic-types can break all the rules, but the non-magic types must be grounded in them.

I'm sorry, I'm just not interested in listening to an argument which is inherently contradictory.

That is tangential.

We make allowances for things that are fantastic, yes. But we also have a sense of reality for things that are actually real or closely based on reality so that when they are out of proportion, they jar our senses in ways that our allowance for the fantastic can't always deal with. People may have differing thresholds for this.

It is most emphatically NOT a case of non-magical characters not getting nice things or even outlandish things. I'll admit that the sense of jarring unreality may feed the preference that non-magical characters not have the same reality bending powers as magic, but the issues are in no way the same thing.

 

[Lwaxy]

The image of the elf you refer to as porn was chosen by my wife, not me. She saw it and said "Hey, that's what I want my character to look like."

Still qualifies as porn in my book.

My point is that many people, who I am assuming are men, are in many cases saying that women find these images bad/wrong/negative/whatever. I am making the point that making such blanket statements about what kind of art women want for their characters is questionable. My wife is a woman. So is her sister. (funnily enough). They both play in my game. Both chose super sexy images for their characters, because that is how they want to imagine them.

How you jumped to "I'm running a porn game of D&D", I'm very unsure, but I suspect you are projecting your own values/hang ups onto me/my game with only a crumb of evidence.

Usually, players pick a picture portraying the way their PCs normally are dressed like or act. At least I've hardly come across any other pictures.

It's possible some males don't dislike those images as much as they claim. I can't know that.

What I am saying is that anyone so quick to get on the proverbial high horse about 'I won't play in a game if THIS kind of immorality is permitted by the obviously depraved DM!!!' is not the type of fellow I would game with in any case. SO on this point we stand even.

What's it to do with morals? Porn is not immoral to me, it just has no place in my games and I don't want D&D associated with it even remotely.

I'd also question the argument "I'm right 'cos everyone around here agrees with me". A pretty shakey argument as well. I don't agree with you for example. Neither would my wife. Or her sister. Or any of the other low lifes who play at my table.

But you are not "around here" - sorry for the confusion, but "around here" is our gaming table. And we had plenty of discussions about fantasy/SciFi art for me to know that we are all more or less on the same page.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I've seen plenty of edition warring, but this is my first view of "my wife's taste in art" warring.

 

[Lwaxy]

As for the names of styles found in anime... Such a list would probably be reduced down to the list of names of famous manga and anime artists,

So, same as if I would say someone is drawing Disney style.

That clears things up a lot.

 

[Lwaxy]

I've seen plenty of edition warring, but this is my first view of "my wife's taste in art" warring.

But I have no wife...