D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[billd91]

This is why guys with swords don't get cool things. Because they are not magic. (Unless their sword is! Then the gloves are off!) Dissociative mechanics are just code for "you didn't use enough magic to explain this." It's not a criticism of the mechanics, it's a criticism of the fluff/fiction you use to justify your mechanics.

This argument is pretty tired. Martial characters do get to do cool things. They're just different things.

There is a difference in suspension of disbelief. That's true. But any magic system is utterly arbitrary and its dissociativeness (or associativeness) is highly mutable. Martial actions face a stiffer standard since sword-fighting and other forms of mundane combat is historical. That's the nature of the beast. And you're never really going to get around it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

All those on that side of the 'edition war,' obviously. Anonymous internet nerdrage, for the most part.

Ah. Well, that explains that.

IMHO, only an OGL version has a shot at re-uniting the fan base to any degree at all.

We agree!

I do think, though, that the influence the business side had on the creative side is often underestimated.

If there were? Sure, /perfect/ balance is an ideal that can't be achieved, but there are plenty of reasonably well-balanced games, some of them are even RPGs, one of those even had the D&D logo.

Just one?

The motives of someone arguing to eliminate strong balance mechanism via some anonymous on-line forum are un-knowable, and don't really matter - the same uncompromising demand is being made regardless of the claimed motivation.

Eliminating the "mechanism" is hardly the same thing.

For example, I detest speed cameras. That doesn't mean that I am a road demon or that I believe that there should be no speed limit. It's because I find them ineffective; they exist mostly to generate revenue rather than to control speeding and reduce accidents.

Similarly, I detest the AEDU system. This doesn't mean that I dislike game balance. It's because I find it an ineffective in doing so and exclusionary to a lot of what rpg mechanics can be.

And frankly, I think a much higher proportion of stakeholders believe that speed cameras make you safer than there are D&D players that equate AEDU with balance.

 

[Obryn]

This argument is pretty tired. Martial characters do get to do cool things. They're just different things.

There is a difference in suspension of disbelief. That's true. But any magic system is utterly arbitrary and its dissociativeness (or associativeness) is highly mutable. Martial actions face a stiffer standard since sword-fighting and other forms of mundane combat is historical. That's the nature of the beast. And you're never really going to get around it.

I agree that magic systems are completely arbitrary; that's basically my point.

The "cool things" bit isn't the thrust of my argument - that argument being, "dissociative mechanics" is code for "needs moar magic." And that "dissociative mechanics" is nonsensical; what you really mean is "dissociative fluff."

But let's take this sub-argument on.

A Wizard, by virtue of being magic, can basically do whatever, and every single thing he does is "associated." Fireballs, reversing gravity, making big hands crush bad guys, charming people, invisibility, daily resources, encounter resources, whatever - he's magic, so it's oka-- I mean "Alexandrian-approved Associated." Because Magic is Magic and Magic has no limits.

"Stuff a fighty guy can do with a sword without people complaining anime wire-fu lolz" is a very much smaller subset than "anything and everything."

-O

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is a mechanic that causes you to break immersion and laugh out loud in an otherwise serious game situation a problem?

No. Because there's no such thing as a mechanic that /causes/ you to break immersion. Mechanics are abstract, no mechanic can pull you in and 'immerse' you (even VR to the extreme of a ST:TNG holodeck probably couldn't do that), immersion is a choice players make. If you can't keep from laughing during a serious moment in a game - whether it's a mechanic that doesn't fit what it's modeling well enough in your eyes, or a player whose RPing a character that he's a radically bad physical 'fit' for, or a plot whole the DM has left open, or an un-intended pop culture reference that accidentally slips into the dialogue - then you just weren't quite up to the challenge of intense RP at that moment.

Of course if that mechanic does not affect you that way then it's not a problem. It was a reguar occurance for my group in 4e. We finally decided we can't tell stories with this game and take them seriously at all.

I guess it must just be a straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back thing for you guys, then. Because the suspensions of disbelief required to get from guys sitting around a table rolling plastic dice, to heroes fighting dragons seems like it'd be orders of magnitude beyond that last little bit of suspending dis-belief because of a 'plot coupon.'

Essentials was a variation on an edition that people had already stopped playing.

And 5e will be a new edition of a game that people had already stopped playing. In both cases, the idea was to address the issues voiced by those how hated it in an attempt to get them back. Essentials failed miserably, and tanked worse than ever. 5e thus has even more people to try to win back.

For that matter, 4e tried to 'fix' the problems people complained about, and, while it's failure may have had more to do with timing, presentation, or the GSL, it's clear that just trying to cater to the squeakiest internet wheel is not a formula for success, by itself.

Well I don't believe balance per se is something anyone is against. But if you are right in your thinking that achieving balance requires plot couponish design then I'd say a lot of people are against it.

Balance doesn't require dailies, it just requires that different classes not have substantially different proportions of their effectiveness in the form of daily resources. A 'plot coupon,' intended as such by design, is a strong narrative device, particularly good for encouraging the 'co-operative storytelling' aspect of RPGs, but such a mechanic could promote balance or imbalance depending upon how it was implemented. Daily powers, regardless of rationale, have never proven great for balance in D&D - even if they don't cause class imbalance (if all classes have them, for instance), they still cause encounter imbalances if the DM doesn't stick to an average number of daily-resource-consuming challenges per day.

So, I certainly don't want to come down on the side of dailies being a must-have in 5e. I'd be delighted if they were relegated to some module, or if a more flexible implementation of limited-use abilities were given, instead. Something adjustable by the DM to fit the pacing of his campaign, like the 'dials' in Fuzion, for instance.

No one is anti-balance.

There is no functional difference between someone arguing zealously and uncompromisingly against every mechanism that has succeeded in delivering balance on the basis of a grab-bag of rationales, and one arguing against those same mechanism for sheer dislike of balance, itself. Both want the same thing.

 

[rounser]

I'm going to throw something out here:

D&D has powerful wizards that can outclass the warriors in some ways, and especially at high levels. Part of it's identity is unashamedly as an "Ars Magica Lite". Trying to balance the classes too much at all levels doesn't match D&D's fantasy reality, and is unrealistic within D&D's milieu (and kind of politically correct and boring).

That is not to say that problems like the wizard rendering thieves obsolete should not be addressed, but suping up the fighter into mystical wire fu wuxia anime territory is folly, as it doesn't match the occidental fantasy reality that most D&D is rooted in. And going all Dragonball Z will not sell D&D. The result of going that way is incoherent mush, not something that can be related back to sources like The Hobbit.

Oh and:
12) The implied setting was mucked up by weird races like teleporting "eladrin" and dragonpeople, losing it's status as a generic fantasy toolkit. Coupled with classes with no archetype like the warlord in the core, the ability to worldbuild anything other than a specifically flavored world was severely compromised by 4E, which is an attack on the heart of one of the main reasons why people choose to play D&D at all (worldbuilding with a generic fantasy toolkit).

 

[triqui]

There is a difference in suspension of disbelief. That's true. But any magic system is utterly arbitrary and its dissociativeness (or associativeness) is highly mutable. Martial actions face a stiffer standard since sword-fighting and other forms of mundane combat is historical. That's the nature of the beast. And you're never really going to get around it.

That fencing is historical does not mean a lot in a fictional world. It woulld, if D&D would be simulating reality. If D&D is meant to simulate other things (such as fantasy worlds), it does not. In fantasy worlds, Bewoulf was able to kill demons with his barehands. Achilles could defeat a river with it's anger, and this is a paragraph describing Sir Kay, one of the Knights of the Round Table:
"nine nights and nine days his breath lasted under water, nine nights and nine days would he be without sleep. A wound from Cai's sword no physician might heal. When it pleased him, he would be as tall as the tallest tree in the forest. When the rain was heaviest, whatever he held in his hand would be dry for a handbreadth before and behind, because of the greatness of his heat, and, when his companions were coldest, he would be as fuel for them to light a fire".

Aragorn was able to run 150 miles in 4 days, which is pretty impresive, although no match to Hector fighting Ajax for a whole day before they both sign a draw.

So the only reason to make D&D fighters "mundane", is if you want them so.

What people who like balance want theif fighters to do, is being on par with Spellcasters.
If spellcasters can cast a lightning bolt, which damage everybody in a line, they want the fighter to be able to charge, and sweep everybody in a line with his sword. If a spellcaster can cast "finger of death" they want to know why a fighter cant "stab the heart" for the same effect.
If a spellcaster can overcome hit points with a "hold person", they ask why a fighter can't cower his target in fear with a "intimidating shout"
And if a spellcaster can cast "displace self" and ignore 50% of the attacks, why a fighter can't go into "defensive stance" and dodge 50% of the incoming attacks? Why not a "dodging nicely stance" that gives you damage reduction similar to Stoneskin (as Hit Points are also dodge, stamina, etc, you don't need to have a real hardened skin, just the damage reduction)

See, they aren't even asking for "teleport", "fly", "limited wish" or "Summon Monster IX".

 

[triqui]

That is not to say that problems like the wizard rendering thieves obsolete should not be addressed, but suping up the fighter into mystical wire fu wuxia anime territory is folly, as it doesn't match the occidental fantasy reality that most D&D is rooted in. And going all Dragonball Z will not sell D&D. The result of going that way is incoherent mush, not something that can be related back to sources like The Hobbit.

I don't know what you think, but I'd say Hector, Achilles, Jason, Heracles, Beowulf, Cuchulain, Sigfried, John Carter of Mars and the knights of the Round Table are, all of them, kinda occidental. And they are just play baddasses that kick any wuxia anime asses into oblvivion.

 

[Ahnehnois]

OK, not just that. 3e could be balanced, at a point, over a modest range of levels. It takes a lot of DM intervention and vigilance, but it's possible. .

Actually, 3e can be balanced over all levels, without any excessive effort by the DM. It can also be unbalanced. Just like any rpg.

No. Because there's no such thing as a mechanic that /causes/ you to break immersion. Mechanics are abstract, no mechanic can pull you in and 'immerse' you, immersion is a choice players make.

As opposed to balance, which is not abstract, not a function of player choice, and is an immutable property of rpg mechanics?

So 'nobody' has anything against balance, but you, and others, are extremely insistent that mechanism that achieve balance be abandoned. And, you reject any and every rational for such mechanics, often on grounds that are equally applicable to other mechanics to which you have no objection.

Yes. We reject the rationale for those mechanics. That rejection is not an invalid perspective. Or, as you put it:

One can understand a fallacious argument without being persuaded by it

As to the comparison, it's true that some, even problematic 4e mechanics predated 4e. However, that doesn't imply the hypocrisy that you suggest. The Tome of Battle, for instance, and the late 3e monster manuals took enormous amounts of criticism. It's not like WotC didn't know there were many people who hated those books; though they may have underestimated how many. If anything, I'd say that 4e was a collection of ideas that were playtested in late 3.5 splatbooks; but WotC ignored the playtest feedback. The flagging sales of late 3e were just as indicative of customer opinion as the (as you put it) rejection is.

In other cases, people accepted mechanics begrudgingly or ignored them; that acceptance didn't indicate a willingness to go a mile farther in the same direction.

There is no important difference between someone arguing zealously and uncompromisingly against every mechanism that has succeeded in delivering balance

If 4e were really that balanced, I don't think we'd be posting this in a 5e forum. You're welcome to define balance and games that successfully achieve it the way you like, but your definition doesn't apply to everyone (and clearly doesn't reflect the prevailing opinion on the subject if sales are any indication).

Also, "uncompromisingly" is rather unfair. Many people use 4e-ish elements like reserve feats and dragonborn in their 3.5 games, and PF has substantial 4e-ish elements. Contrary to what WotC might want to believe, D&D fans are open to change, just not the specific changes that constitute 4e.

 

[Obryn]

So the only reason to make D&D fighters "mundane", is if you want them so.

I "must spread XP around" sadly.

-O

 

[triqui]

If 4e were really that balanced, I don't think we'd be posting this in a 5e forum. You're welcome to define balance and games that successfully achieve it the way you like, but your definition doesn't apply to everyone (and clearly doesn't reflect the prevailing opinion on the subject if sales are any indication).

That's not necessarely so. It's perfectly possible that 4e did achieve balance, but sold poorly for other reasons: for example, it achieved balance, but broke suspension of disbelief. Or it achived balance, but removed vancian magic, which happened to be a "single issue vote" for a lot of people. Or it achived balance, but (grasp...) balance is something a lot of people don't want.

So the sales of 4e might be an indication of it's failure to please people, but in no way shows a failure in balance. 4e could (and in my opinion, is) balanced and yet fail to please a lot of people tastes (as in my opiniion, happens to be). Both things aren't mutually exclusive.