D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[Neonchameleon]

Neonchameleon also seemingly approaches Wizards from a similar viewpoint. If you're an adventurer, and your life is always on the line, then it's out-of-character to purposefully gimp yourself.

I'd argue that there are a lot of people that gimp themselves in real life for all kinds of reasons (usually because it's within their comfort zone, but also because it's their preference, or to uphold some type of ideal, etc.). And playing characters with that type of personality means that you might not be so inherently pragmatic (thus the references to Gambit), or you may be more themed (a fire wizard who prepares fire spells because he prefers them), etc.

The comfort zone issue is to me not one for adventurers. Mostly because adventurers (whether murderhobos or shining heroes). And when you mention themed characters you simply illustrate one of the core problems with classic Vancian casting and D&D. Most good systems that encourage a variety of fluff options put in theme rewards.

The 4e Pyromancer gets +1 damage per tier on fire spells and at level 10 when he casts a fire AoE spell he gets to set the ground on fire. And then there are feats that add to his fire damage. One of the things being a Fire Wizard/Pyromancer means in a well designed system is that you are better than most other people are with fire spells. So picking more fire spells is a smart move - it's building on your strength.

A classic 1e-3e wizard on the other hand doesn't get to do this. A fireball is a fireball whether cast by an illusionist or an evoker. (OK, so the specialist 3.5 Evoker can gain a couple of points of DC for evocation magic, but this applies equally to lightning bolts).

There is no significant reward for such specialisation and the Vancian system encourages the opposite.

 

[Imaro]

The comfort zone issue is to me not one for adventurers. Mostly because adventurers (whether murderhobos or shining heroes). And when you mention themed characters you simply illustrate one of the core problems with classic Vancian casting and D&D. Most good systems that encourage a variety of fluff options put in theme rewards.

The 4e Pyromancer gets +1 damage per tier on fire spells and at level 10 when he casts a fire AoE spell he gets to set the ground on fire. And then there are feats that add to his fire damage. One of the things being a Fire Wizard/Pyromancer means in a well designed system is that you are better than most other people are with fire spells. So picking more fire spells is a smart move - it's building on your strength.

A classic 1e-3e wizard on the other hand doesn't get to do this. A fireball is a fireball whether cast by an illusionist or an evoker. (OK, so the specialist 3.5 Evoker can gain a couple of points of DC for evocation magic, but this applies equally to lightning bolts).

There is no significant reward for such specialisation and the Vancian system encourages the opposite.

Aren't there feats you can take to gain advantages in the vein of a pyromancer with fire spells in 3.x?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Actually powers that approximate encounter powers are possible using other methods. Here some examples
1. On any attack where you exceed the enemies AC/defense by 5 immediately add an encounter power effect.
2. Assign stamina points to powers and allow X per round. Obviously these powers have to be strenuous to really be believed.
3. Reactive. Whenever someone does something I get the chance at-will to react. Think opportunity attack.
4. At-will powers that have a downside like a minus to hit.

With all due respect, all four of those fail to do what I want.

1 takes my tactics where the rubber meets the road almost entirely out of my hands. It's evocative. But means I don't get to make decisions. 3 is likewise, although not quite as bad. I'm not deciding. I do not get to make anything like the decisions my character is making.

2 and 4 are under most implementations spamtastic. There is one best trick for the situation and I'm going to use it over and over again. It's the old Power Attack spreadsheet issue. Yes, you can obfuscate the spreasheet but you are basically best off doing the same thing over and over again.

I play non-rpg games that do what you say. I'm not a real general of an army nor am I a real estate mogul. But when I roleplay I want to be as close to my character as I can get.

And here's an aesthetic choice. Because I can't see what my character sees we have the question "Is it better to make a choice like one my character can make, or make no choice at all". With the AEDU structure my choices are like my character's but they are not quite the same. E and D stand in for a mix of stamina, positioning, and luck that is too detailed for the game to go into.

All your options give me no choice at all (or no significant choice - there's One Best Path) where my character would be making what I consider a pretty important one.

I'm not saying that Encounter Powers are the only way to do what I need to. I've offered a variant on the Crusader from the Bo9S. Or could offer rolling to see whether powers/combos could be used at the start of your turn. I'm saying that in order to be able to make the highly pressurised choices martial characters make when the rubber meets the road I need something like encounter powers that are at least partially abstract. And that not being able to make this sort of choice and instead letting my PC go ahead and do whatever they want breaks my immersion.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It also discounts (though just as part of the noise loop, not actual sales volume) how many people complained about 3E mechanics, then when Wotc said "Hey, look, we fixed them" turned around and cried "What? How dare you insult my game?!?!?!!!" It's akin to kid who complains "My mom is such a jerk" and his friend says "yeah" promptly "causing" the first kid to become irate, yelling "What did you say about my mother?"

I think the majority of D&D fans are still waiting for a game that identifies and addresses the actual problems of 3e and earlier D&D. We haven't seen that game yet, but 4e pretty definitively is not it. (Nor is anything else on the market).

When we saw a bunch of petty and mean-spirited anti-D&D rhetoric designed to sell a game that was basically a "worst hits" version of some failed experiments from 3.5 supplements, retains all of D&D's substative flaws, and loses many of its strong points, yes, we were a little peeved. Not really a fair analogy there.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Aren't there feats you can take to gain advantages in the vein of a pyromancer with fire spells in 3.x?

From a quick google, nothing that comes close. Yes, you can get some bonusses - but you're pushing too far uphill.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Again, they are not stating that there is an absolute uniformity here or that no one can/will/may work outside of this. They are just saying that their concept exists. Not that it is majority or uniform or anything close to it. Under the auspices of that caveat, I'm not sure how it loses steam.

Well, in Hussar's post, he does indicate that it goes against the character's POV ("Now, this is, from the character's POV, ridiculous"). And, he prefaces that with "Many of the things that a character might try make virtually no sense from the character's point of view", so he's accounted for it not being all-encompassing. You're right, there.

Of course, they're saying "things can be at odds between character and player" and other people are saying "they don't need to be." So... okay? They're right in that they can be at odds. Sure. I'm not sure what that proves, exactly. If you're trying to clarify their point, can you do so? Because when people are saying "they don't need to be", they're still being met with resistance. As always, play what you like

The comfort zone issue is to me not one for adventurers. Mostly because adventurers (whether murderhobos or shining heroes).

I'm not sure if something got caught off here (mostly because adventurers what?). I definitely think comfort zone applies. Even people in dangerous situations with do dangerous things because they're more comfortable doing it. I have a close friend (I was the best man at his wedding) who confirms this from the time he spent in Iraq.

And when you mention themed characters you simply illustrate one of the core problems with classic Vancian casting and D&D. Most good systems that encourage a variety of fluff options put in theme rewards.

This is just stating a preference of what a "good system" is, obviously. But, it's like Craft or Perform (non-Bard) in 3.X; a lot of people thought those skills were worth a lot less than other skills, while still others valued them more (yes, more). It's just a matter of what you value in the game (and to some people, that's being a good performer).

The 4e Pyromancer gets +1 damage per tier on fire spells and at level 10 when he casts a fire AoE spell he gets to set the ground on fire. And then there are feats that add to his fire damage. One of the things being a Fire Wizard/Pyromancer means in a well designed system is that you are better than most other people are with fire spells. So picking more fire spells is a smart move - it's building on your strength.

I have no objection to this type of design.

A classic 1e-3e wizard on the other hand doesn't get to do this. A fireball is a fireball whether cast by an illusionist or an evoker. (OK, so the specialist 3.5 Evoker can gain a couple of points of DC for evocation magic, but this applies equally to lightning bolts).

There is no significant reward for such specialisation and the Vancian system encourages the opposite.

The reward is for the character concept (including personality) matching what you want. That is, your character is mechanically expressed in a way that matches what you want (a Wizard with fire spells), and that makes you happy. The bonus damage is gravy, but it's secondary to having your character be expressed the way you want them to. Mind you, gravy is good, so it's why I have no objection. But, again, the reward for themed characters is that the player gets what he wants, whether it's optimized or not.

My comment was on making a character who had a mindset that was different from "most optimized [or pragmatic] actions are the best." And I think that's how the majority of humans behave on many issues. Certain issues (like getting out of work ), people can be pretty efficient in. In a lot of other activities, that's not how it works, though.

Then again, I also get my thought-wires crossed when I start to move beyond "adventurer" or "heroic fantasy" and other people don't. I wouldn't consider most characters in Song of Ice and Fire adventurers or involved in heroic fantasy, but I'd like to make characters with similar motivations (or capabilities). But, while related, that's probably an entirely different discussion. As always, play what you like

 

[Tony Vargas]

Some people might be narrow-minded like you imply, but the majority won't, and it's the majority that will decide if 5E's cause is hopeless or not.

As long as 5E gets the presentation right (and I think it's their onus to do so), they can honestly claim they've done 100% to challenge preconceptions.

I guess we just have very different opinions of the fan-base - and probably humanity, in general - then. D&D was a very slow-changing game for most of it's history, and that had to please (retain) change-adverse fans. That's not the same thing as 'narrow-minded,' but in this context (accepting something new), it'll likely have a similar net effect. More broadly, I think jumping to a conclusion or forming an opinion uncritically, then, at most, rationalizing it, is prettymuch the human norm, examining something dispassionately and making a rational judgement is a matter of struggling against basic human nature.

All the more so when it comes to something that really isn't all that important in any larger sense.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well, in Hussar's post, he does indicate that it goes against the character's POV ("Now, this is, from the character's POV, ridiculous"). And, he prefaces that with "Many of the things that a character might try make virtually no sense from the character's point of view", so he's accounted for it not being all-encompassing. You're right, there.

Of course, they're saying "things can be at odds between character and player" and other people are saying "they don't need to be." So... okay? They're right in that they can be at odds. Sure. I'm not sure what that proves, exactly. If you're trying to clarify their point, can you do so? Because when people are saying "they don't need to be", they're still being met with resistance.

My bold and underlined. Ok, when people say "they don't need to be", I would need to know what "they don't need to be" means precisely. Is it;

1) if you choose, you can Orient, Decide and Act from Actor's Stance and always be consistent with both genre expectations and character profile?

or

2) Regardless of the end you seek, you can Orient, Decide and Act from any Stance and always be consistent with both genre expectations and character profile and attain the end you seek?

If it is 1, then yes, I agree. But that isn't really saying much as it is self-evident and hardly cuts to the core of the issue.

If it is 2, then no, I do not agree at all. And this is where I believe Hussar and pemerton are coming from. For instance, let us say the genre expectations are Grim and Gritty (the cold pragmatism of risk assessment and acting in accords with this analysis to minimize risk and maximize resource deployment). Let us say your character's profile is generally in line with these genre expectations (a shrew pragmatist). However;

Observe - Let us say that the fiction is exceedingly stagnant on the evening in question. The player thinks "blargh, I need to liven this up and make something happen." This is the end he is seeking in the moment; livening things up and creating fiction that is dynamic rather than stagnant.

Orient - To that end, he metagames (ruminating on how to make this happen).

Decide - He determines that the most guaranteed, expedient way to bring this end about it is to detach his own perspective from that of his character.

Act - He assume Author Stance and performs some rash (perhaps flamboyant a la the genre expectations of Swashbuckling) action that defies Genre Expectations and is anomalous with respect to his Character Profile.

For Fun and Dynamic Fiction Now.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Emerikol]

With all due respect, all four of those fail to do what I want.

1 takes my tactics where the rubber meets the road almost entirely out of my hands. It's evocative. But means I don't get to make decisions. 3 is likewise, although not quite as bad. I'm not deciding. I do not get to make anything like the decisions my character is making.

2 and 4 are under most implementations spamtastic. There is one best trick for the situation and I'm going to use it over and over again. It's the old Power Attack spreadsheet issue. Yes, you can obfuscate the spreasheet but you are basically best off doing the same thing over and over again.



And here's an aesthetic choice. Because I can't see what my character sees we have the question "Is it better to make a choice like one my character can make, or make no choice at all". With the AEDU structure my choices are like my character's but they are not quite the same. E and D stand in for a mix of stamina, positioning, and luck that is too detailed for the game to go into.

All your options give me no choice at all (or no significant choice - there's One Best Path) where my character would be making what I consider a pretty important one.

I'm not saying that Encounter Powers are the only way to do what I need to. I've offered a variant on the Crusader from the Bo9S. Or could offer rolling to see whether powers/combos could be used at the start of your turn. I'm saying that in order to be able to make the highly pressurised choices martial characters make when the rubber meets the road I need something like encounter powers that are at least partially abstract. And that not being able to make this sort of choice and instead letting my PC go ahead and do whatever they want breaks my immersion.

I must admit then that any game that really makes you happy probably will turn me off. Maybe with modularity we can have different options. But yours I'd have to ban for everyone at my table because such things bug a person regardless of who is doing them.

I believe even in 4e the choices really are set. 98% of the time you lead with the same combination of powers. So I'm not sure the choice is as much as you realize.

The game survived for 30 so years before it had the kinds of choices you prefer. It's not really though until 4e in the tradition of D&D. I'm not sure how I'd classify it. We'd probably both be happier with two separate games. I doubt 5e will make you happy because it sounds like you want encounter/dailies for everyone period.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Ok, when people say "they don't need to be", I would need to know what "they don't need to be" means precisely.

It's a direct counter to "sometimes things don't line up, and you have to act out of character to please the player." I disagree with that assessment.

That is, if someone wants to have the kind of character where they jump on chandeliers because it's cool but not practical, that doesn't need to conflict with the character; design a character who has a personality that favors cool over practical.

Observe - Let us say that the fiction is exceedingly stagnant on the evening in question. The player thinks "blargh, I need to liven this up and make something happen." This is the end he is seeking in the moment; livening things up and creating fiction that is dynamic rather than stagnant.

Orient - To that end, he metagames (ruminating on how to make this happen).

Decide - He determines that the most guaranteed, expedient way to bring this end about it is to detach his own perspective from that of his character.

Act - He assume Author Stance and performs some rash (perhaps flamboyant a la the genre expectations of Swashbuckling) action that defies Genre Expectations and is anomalous with respect to his Character Profile.

For Fun and Dynamic Fiction Now.

I hope that makes sense.

Oh no, I've been aware of the logic of the point since Hussar mentioned it, and before it got expanded upon. My point, again, is that there's no real need to use this example of something that happens to every group, or is in any way necessary or unavoidable.

While what you've described certainly happens, it has no need to. It is fine for groups that enjoy that style of game, and for people that want to avoid that style of play, they can make less than purely pragmatic characters.

So, again, if the point is "this can happen" then I go back to... okay? Of course it can. I just fail to see what the point of "it can happen" is. I understand the "it" of the sentence, so no need to explain that to me. What is the point of saying that it can happen in this conversation?