Falling from Great Heights

[Eldritch_Lord]

All of which is well and good, but not the direction that D&D Next is taking in it's design.

I'd suggest reading up on where Monte and Company are going with the game, because with the exception of a couple of your more minor points, the game design is quite contrary to what you describe.

The base game is not going to be "in the middle".

It's going to address the lowest common denominator, and allow each group to alter it from there.

1) I realize that that's not the direction they're taking, and I believe that that's a mistake on their part. The question was whether unrealistic features is a good thing or a bad thing, not whether the designers agree with us. But I'll give 5e a try, just like I gave 3e and 4e a try even when a bunch of previews appeared to show a bunch of bad ideas implemented badly, and just like I've given GURPS and Exalted and Riddle of Steel and World of Darkness a try even when I don't particularly like some of their stylistic choices; I may like the result, I may not.

2) "Realistic D&D" is not the lowest common denominator of "gritty D&D" plus "mythic D&D" plus "superhero D&D" plus "godlike D&D." The lowest common denominator of four different playstyles is a leveling curve that allows you to play all four of them, not a curve that ignores three of the four. In AD&D and 3e you can play Riddle of Steel in the first few levels with its highly-lethal combat, then LotR in the next few levels with its more cinematic storylines then World of Darkness in the next few levels with its superhuman characters, and cap it off with a nice bit of Exalted with its world-changing and gods-slaying. If 5e is going to be the One Edition to Rule Them All, cutting off the top 3/4 of the game and stretching the first 5 levels over the other 15 won't work too well.

So, let's just leave it at that.

Yeah, it looks like we're not going to see eye to eye on the issue.

Purely out of curiosity, and not because I'm trying to stealthily make a point or anything, do you play any other non-gritty RPGs and get your unrealistic kicks from those, or do you play only realistic RPGs, or do you not play any other RPGs at all? I'm just trying to get a frame of reference here, since I know some players who do D&D and M&M and Exalted and houserule D&D to make it as non-super as they can, and some who do D&D and Conan and RoS and disdain unrealistic games, and some who only play D&D and like changing D&D around to fit different style (this week it's "low magic D&D" and next week it's "steampunk intrigue D&D" and so on) instead of playing multiple systems.

 

[El Mahdi]

I pretty much only play D&D or related D20 systems, and adapt the rules to fit specific styles.

Though predominantly, regardless of genre, the style emphasizes realism.

 

[Hussar]

I pretty much only play D&D or related D20 systems, and adapt the rules to fit specific styles.

Though predominantly, regardless of genre, the style emphasizes realism.

I have to wonder - why? If you value realism, why play D&D? I'm not being snarky here, I really do wonder. D&D has never pretended to be a realistic game. The Gygax HP quote from the 1e DMG is a pretty clear example of this.

There are a thousand other systems out there that take realism as the baseline for their game. Why would you spend years trying to pound nails with a screwdriver?

 

[BryonD]

Unfortunately, a high level character can drink a carboy of poison, no matter his body chemistry, or other curious coincidences.

I consider this position to be a root problem.

I firmly believe that the rules (before a very recent era) were always comfortable with certain assumptions.

One of those assumptions was a thoughtful and rational DM.

Another of those assumptions was that the game would be played under reasonable parameters in which things worked as expected and characters behaved as expected. "As expected" takes into account that it is a fantastic world. But it isn't just stupid.

If in my game you intentionally drink a large quantity of poison, then you are implicitly waiving your right to a saving throw. And before this "recent era" I'd think that would go without saying.

I was also recently told that in old editions of D&D you could get into staring competitions with Medusa. To me that is the exact same point.
And if either of those make the least bit of sense to someone, then by all means play what you like, but don't turn around and try to tell me what makes a good or bad game or complain to me about how things haven't worked out well.

 

[Incenjucar]

And before this "recent era" I'd think that would go without saying.

By recent era I assume you mean the 90s, because this has nothing to do with the recent editions.

 

[BryonD]

By recent era I assume you mean the 90s, because this has nothing to do with the recent editions.

In my experience it doesn't go back near that far. Certainly I make no claim that it didn't progress at different rates in different areas.

But I can't make the same presumptions of common ground even here on ENWorld that I could have six years ago.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In my experience it doesn't go back near that far. Certainly I make no claim that it didn't progress at different rates in different areas.

But I can't make the same presumptions of common ground even here on ENWorld that I could have six years ago.

The common ground didn't exist 12 years ago on ENWorld, much less six. This state of affairs merely became more obvious as time passed. I was lurking heavily then, and I saw the same thing I saw on other boards. You could tell that people said a lot of, "that's just how I do it," when it was fairly clear to those with different preferences that it wasn't alike at all.

 

[BryonD]

The common ground didn't exist 12 years ago on ENWorld, much less six. This state of affairs merely became more obvious as time passed. I was lurking heavily then, and I saw the same thing I saw on other boards. You could tell that people said a lot of, "that's just how I do it," when it was fairly clear to those with different preferences that it wasn't alike at all.

I disagree.
I was posting since Eric added forums to his 3E preview page.
There were VAST arguments. (And anyone who remembers me from then will know that 4E did NOTHING to change my eagerness for debate)
So in a very generic sense there was all kinds of lack of "common ground". But in the context of things like "drinking carboys of poison", the need to frame that debate with a presumption of putting the obvious story over blind obedience to mechanics which were clearly not intended to address such absurdity in the first place is a whole new issue.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I disagree.

I disagree back. I saw the same type of discussions here that I saw elsewhere. It got so bad on one board that I begin getting private mails along the lines of, "Glad you said that. I thought I was the only one that didn't think that quite fit." And then I'd get multiple such messages.

I'm playing the same way that I played once I got over my Killer DM phase, circa 1983. Oh, I've gotten better at playing that way, but it is essentially the same way. And it ain't the stuff you guys say is so important--even when I got attaboys from people who thought they were doing the same thing.

Not that I expect this to be bought. It is clear to me that there is a vast conceptual gap on some issues such that half of us often talk past the other half, and vice versa. I can see the gap, the mist, the treacherous rocks clearly enough, but not what is on the other side that causes the gap. Based on total failure to understand where I'm coming from, repeated way too many times to count over the last 12 years, I feel safe in saying that those on the other side see my side no more clearly--even those that are aware it is there. I think it would take extended and dedicated cross-pollination to bridge it, and most of us are too satisfied where we are to put forth the kind of effort needed to bridge it.

If WotC can bridge that gap (instead of smudge it on the map), I'll be most impressed.

 

[Incenjucar]

In my experience it doesn't go back near that far. Certainly I make no claim that it didn't progress at different rates in different areas.

But I can't make the same presumptions of common ground even here on ENWorld that I could have six years ago.

Well I did live in California, which is everyone else's future, so I suppose encountering it before 2.5E was released is to be expected.