D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Sunseeker]

I do not see what is wrong with advocating for the game you want to play.

Because you, like Nagol, focus on YOUR needs, YOUR wants, YOUR choices, what YOU want to see in the game, what YOU want to play.

D&D is not YOUR game. So your advocacy is flawed.

And I'm not just talking about systems here, everyone has their favorite systems, but D&D is still a game that requires more than one person to play. In order for that to happen, more than one person must enjoy the game, must want to play the game. So when you advocate for me, me, me, mine, mine, mine it doesn't engender this "lets get a bunch of folks to sit down at the table and play a game together." it engenders a feeling of "I want people to play MY game and if they're not playing MY way I'm not playing at all."

If D&D is to continue it can't be YOUR game, or MY game. It has to be OUR game. Both the people who want to swing swords but not be superbly outlcassed by mid-levels and the people who want to wave wands and wield Ultimate Power have to come together, otherwise we'll never have anything more than we have now, multiple editions, multiple fanbases, and none of them having any desire to play together. Making the hobby, it's market, and it's voice, weak, which in business means: "don't bother".

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think you are creating a caricature of the preference. Some of us like magic to be magic, and want our fighters to be fighters. By all means give fighters extra attacks, more damage or whatever. I just dont think they need to be supernatural or have reskinned spells. I liked fighters in previous editions. They were my favorite class. But couldnt stand them in 4E.

Great for you. I dis-liked fighters in every other edition and could never really figure out why; they were a bit boring, generally, until higher levels (which under AD&D took a LONG time). Mostly seemed like chasing bigger numbers until you got a keep at 9th level. Or, in the case of 3.x, you just got the shaft all the way up the level chart.

Enter 4e. Now I think fighters are great, because they can *do* things, besides just hit people with a stick. They can affect the narrative in ways other than just making things die.

Next, so far, contains none of those things. Not interested. I guess I'm advocating for the game I want. If that's mutually exclusive of the game you want, then I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree and we'll both vote with our dollars and see which one figures better for WotC.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Try telling that to Muhammad Ali. I'm sure he'd be happy to hear that he broke your immersion. I completely forgot the rope a dope technique is in fact come and get it.

Actually, not kidding here, I wrote one my final college history papers on the ali foreman fight where the rope-a-dope was made famous. I really dont see much of a connection between come and get it, where you are literally moving another guy on the mat to a spot adjacent to you, and the rope a dope, where ali basically let foreman punch him and used the ropes to absorb as much of the impact as possible (tireing foreman out in the process). In that scenario, foreman was still choosing to punch ali and engage him. The rope adope isnt a taunt. Its about tireing the guy out and setting up counters.

 

[technoextreme]

Actually, not kidding here, I wrote one my final college history papers on the ali foreman fight where the rope-a-dope was made famous. I really dont see much of a connection between come and get it, where you are literally moving another guy on the mat to a spot adjacent to you, and the rope a dope, where ali basically let foreman punch him and used the ropes to absorb as much of the impact as possible (tireing foreman out in the process). In that scenario, foreman was still choosing to punch ali and engage him. The rope adope isnt a taunt. Its about tireing the guy out and setting up counters.

No rope a dope was primarily psychological. It basically was a feint that allowed him to draw in Foreman and tire him all the while him being relatively fine. It worked so well that even the sports announcers thought he was going to be killed.
EDIT:
Also, that is ignoring that Ali was famous in getting underneath people's skin which is seemingly a magical ability in your mind.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Because you, like Nagol, focus on YOUR needs, YOUR wants, YOUR choices, what YOU want to see in the game, what YOU want to play.

D&D is not YOUR game. So your advocacy is flawed.

And I'm not just talking about systems here, everyone has their favorite systems, but D&D is still a game that requires more than one person to play. In order for that to happen, more than one person must enjoy the game, must want to play the game. So when you advocate for me, me, me, mine, mine, mine it doesn't engender this "lets get a bunch of folks to sit down at the table and play a game together." it engenders a feeling of "I want people to play MY game and if they're not playing MY way I'm not playing at all."

If D&D is to continue it can't be YOUR game, or MY game. It has to be OUR game. Both the people who want to swing swords but not be superbly outlcassed by mid-levels and the people who want to wave wands and wield Ultimate Power have to come together, otherwise we'll never have anything more than we have now, multiple editions, multiple fanbases, and none of them having any desire to play together. Making the hobby, it's market, and it's voice, weak, which in business means: "don't bother".

Yes, it does need to be both our game. But it has to do so in a way that gets both people to the table. I am sorry but stuff like mundane encounter and daily powers are a dealbreaker for me. If they choose not to cater to people like myself, i am totally okay with that. But there is a reason I played D&D up through 3E and stopped when 4E came out.

 

[Nagol]

Because you, like Nagol, focus on YOUR needs, YOUR wants, YOUR choices, what YOU want to see in the game, what YOU want to play.

D&D is not YOUR game. So your advocacy is flawed.

And I'm not just talking about systems here, everyone has their favorite systems, but D&D is still a game that requires more than one person to play. In order for that to happen, more than one person must enjoy the game, must want to play the game. So when you advocate for me, me, me, mine, mine, mine it doesn't engender this "lets get a bunch of folks to sit down at the table and play a game together." it engenders a feeling of "I want people to play MY game and if they're not playing MY way I'm not playing at all."

If D&D is to continue it can't be YOUR game, or MY game. It has to be OUR game. Both the people who want to swing swords but not be superbly outlcassed by mid-levels and the people who want to wave wands and wield Ultimate Power have to come together, otherwise we'll never have anything more than we have now, multiple editions, multiple fanbases, and none of them having any desire to play together. Making the hobby, it's market, and it's voice, weak, which in business means: "don't bother".

My wants, needs, and desires are the only ones I can speak to with authority. The designers have to sift through the advocated positions and decide what game they want to sell that will reverbate with enough potential customers. I don't envy them. In many ways, being small and putting out a heart-breaker is much easier.

 

[Nagol]

double post

 

[Bedrockgames]

No rope a dope was primarily psychological. It basically was a feint that allowed him to draw in Foreman and tire him all the while him being relatively fine. It worked so well that even the sports announcers thought he was going to be killed.

I have seen the fight several times. And i used to box. I am not denying there is a physchological element to the rope a dope. But it was basically about letting foreman hit him, using the ropes to absorb as much impact as he could, so foreman tired himself out. Ali was famous for taunting his foes. This wasnt an example of him taunting or feinting (and even when he did taunt, he didn't gain actual control of anyone). In the case of the rumble in the jungle, it is debatable whether alis taunts proviked foreman to attack all out like that, since foreman pretty much faught all his fights to that point by being the aggressor and getting the KO. This was an example of him letting foreman think he was hurting ali until he got tired. That isnt feinting. feinting is about deliberately telegraphing movement so the person reacts with the wrong defense or the wrong motion, so you can set up an attack. Also though if you do actually watch that fight, there is a lot more going on then just the rope a dope. Ali basically outboxed foreman.

 

[Bluenose]

I think you are creating a caricature of the preference. Some of us like magic to be magic, and want our fighters to be fighters. By all means give fighters extra attacks, more damage or whatever. I just dont think they need to be supernatural or have reskinned spells. I liked fighters in previous editions. They were my favorite class. But couldnt stand them in 4E.

And psychological tricks that fool an opponent into doing something that isn't in their interests despite how it appears. Though apparently they're too implausible for some people's tastes.

 

[technoextreme]

I have seen the fight several times. And i used to box. I am not denying there is a physchological element to the rope a dope. But it was basically about letting foreman hit him, using the ropes to absorb as much impact as he could, so foreman tired himself out. Ali was famous for taunting his foes. This wasnt an example of him taunting or feinting (and even when he did taunt, he didn't gain actual control of anyone). This was an example of him letting foreman think he was hurting ali until he got tired. That isnt feinting. feinting is about deliberately telegraphing movement so the person reacts with the wrong defense or the wrong motion, so you can set up an attack. Also though if you do actually watch that fight, there is a lot more going on then just the rope a dope. Ali basically outboxed foreman.

Rope a dope only works through tricking your opponent. Its a huge huge huge gambit but it primarily is psychological in nature.