OSR D&D 5e OSR backwards compatibility

[Morrus]

Please note that will all his research, this is the message that was pulled from it and quoted.

"In the spreadsheet above you can see, the Fighter's combat efficacy... is adjusted significantly downward in 5th edition."

"Efficacy" is effectiveness. "the ability to produce a desired or intended result."

This reads "The fighter's combat effectiveness is significantly lower in 5th Edition."

I'm surprised that you *aren't* reading it that way. It is not just pure, innocent stats. The moment that statement was made, it changed the message of his report. It turned the entire excercise into flawed evidence for a negative value judgment of the effectiveness of the 5th edition Fighter. Either it was on purpose, or he is incorrectly thinking that only BAB applies to the effectiveness of Fighters.

The research is interesting, and the graph is pretty, but the conclusion is what upset some of us, because it is inflammatory and flawed.

... in my opinion.

A fighter's effectiveness level cannot be inflammatory. It cannot give rise to upset. It has no moral or emotional context. Is a less efficient fighter class inferior game design in your opinion? Or superior? Or what? Do better games have more efficient fighters or something? I don't get it. Is M&M a better game because it has Superman in it?

If you disagree with the article, that's fine. Debating it is fun and interesting. Casting aspersions on the motives or character of the author or ascribe emotional descriptors like "inflammatory" or levels of "innocence" to it? Pure silliness.

Yeah, I know. "But, internet". That's what the internet does, whatever the topic. Doesn't mean I don't cringe when I see it.

 

[Nagol]

"Magic item shops" were not standard or recommended practice in AD&D, and there was no concept of wealth by level. As such, you couldn't choose your magic items--you got what the dice and the DM gave you, which meant there was no way to pump character resources into boosting your Strength. So I don't think it's at all appropriate to assume Strength-boosting gear for AD&D, any more than it is for 5E (and as of the final playtest, Strength boosters do exist in 5E, they're just very high rarity).

Your choice, of course. I didn't mention item shops though.

There are enough items that acts are either replacers or enhancers on the charts that I suspect it would be unlikely to not hit any of them if the treasure charts were being used in campaign play. Additionally, since you are going to 20th level and all spell casters are capable of making permanent magic items by their mid-teens, it was also possible for a character who did manage to lose the item lottery to acquire them through their friends and associates.

 

[Dausuul]

"In the spreadsheet above you can see, the Fighter's combat efficacy... is adjusted significantly downward in 5th edition."

That is an accurate quote. However, he follows it up with the observation that 5E hit points and damage are much higher.

This reads "The fighter's combat effectiveness is significantly lower in 5th Edition."

Highly debatable. "The ability to produce a desired result" could be read as "the ability to kill the monster" or as "the ability to hit the monster." Again, his observation about hit points and damage undermines the idea that he actually meant to say 5E fighters are weak because their attack bonus is low.

It turned the entire excercise into flawed evidence for a negative value judgment of the effectiveness of the 5th edition Fighter.

Flat wrong. Even assuming your interpretation of the word "efficacy," it is not a negative value judgement. It is a neutral observation. It is a statement about the world--perhaps incorrect, but carrying no value either way.

Relative to 3E, 5E has significantly reduced the combat efficacy of wizards. That is not a negative value judgement. For many of us, it is a substantial positive good. I want 5E to give wizards a big ol' whack with the nerf bat (relative to 3E).

 

[Mistwell]

Who is it "misleading"? And why? Who used the word "better" other than you? What import are you assigning this? And, indeed, why?

I'm afraid I agree with the folks you're butting heads against here. The author did make a value judgement. Are we now claiming that efficacy (the ability to produce the intended result; usefulness) carries no value judgement with it?

You need to try pretty hard to assign a value judgment to the sentence ""the Fighter's combat efficacy is relatively unchanged from AD&D through 3.x, but is adjusted significantly downward in 5th edition". You have to want to see it, I think. It may or may not be wrong, or right, or inaccurate, or incomplete, but it's not a value judgement.

Huh, so you are in fact claiming that efficacy carries no value judgement. OK, I find that weird. How is it not a value judgement?

A value judgement (according to Wikipedia) includes the usefulness of something, based on a comparison.

The author is literally saying "The fighter's ability to achieve the stated goal of being effective at fighting ("combat efficacy") is not as well met as it was in all prior editions". That's what that sentence means in English, when you define the words used in the sentence.

That's a judgement of the value of the thing. If you compare the efficacy (another way to say usefulness, and in fact usefulness is listed as a synonym of efficacy) of A, B, C, and D, and you say A, B, and C all have a higher efficacy than D, then that's a value judgement. That's a comparison of the usefulness of something, which is what "value judgement" means.

So yeah, I don't think you have to try very hard at all to see a value judgement in the sentence. In fact I am having a hard time seeing your view that there is no value judgement there. If it's not a value judgement, then what do you think it is?

 

[Morrus]

I'm afraid I agree with the folks you're butting heads against here. The author did make a value judgement. Are we now claiming that efficacy (the ability to produce the intended result; usefulness) carries no value judgement with it?



Huh, so you are in fact claiming that efficacy carries no value judgement. OK, I find that weird. How is it not a value judgement?

A value judgement (according to Wikipedia) includes the usefulness of something, based on a comparison.

The author is literally saying "The fighter's ability to achieve the stated goal of being effective at fighting ("combat efficacy") is not as well met as it was in all prior editions". That's what that sentence means in English, when you define the words used in the sentence.

That's a judgement of the value of the thing. If you compare the efficacy (another way to say usefulness, and in fact usefulness is listed as a synonym of efficacy) of A, B, C, and D, and you say A, B, and C all have a higher efficacy than D, then that's a value judgement. That's a comparison of the usefulness of something, which is what "value judgement" means.

So yeah, I don't think you have to try very hard at all to see a value judgement in the sentence. In fact I am having a hard time seeing your view that there is no value judgement there. If it's not a value judgement, then what do you think it is?

I don't really know how to phrase it any other way. The value judgement I was referring to is about the game not the fighter.

I don't see the level of ability of a fighter in a game to be a statement of that game's quality. I don't know why people are upset because someone doesn't think a fighter in an upcoming game is as powerful as a fighter in an old one*. I don't understand why that makes the game better or worse. I don't understand what agenda folks are ascribing the author, or why they think he's trying to "mislead" them or be "inflammatory". If it's that easy to make a game better by giving something a bigger number, I need to quickly revisit my own game I'm designing!

It's a bit of trivia. It's interesting. But to get upset by it? That's utterly insane behaviour.

*And all he's doing is trying to work out whether it's compatible. Anyone who thinks he's judging one game as better or worse than the other based on an attack bonus is beyond my personal ability to understand.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I was going to type something here but [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] did it better then I could


But to Morris if I say yugio has bigger numbers then magic the gathering that is true

If I say any 1 card is more powerful or more effective I need to provide much more then 300/250 com paired to 7/7

 

[Mistwell]

A fighter's effectiveness level cannot be inflammatory. It cannot give rise to upset. It has no moral or emotional context.

Ah I see the problem. You've conflated "value judgement" with "moral or emotional judgement".

That's one definition of the term "value judgement", IE concerning moral values. But, I don't think that's what anyone meant. "Value Judgement" in this context is a claim that the author came to "a conclusion [that] is insular, one-sided, and not objective", and can also mean a, "tentative judgment based on a considered appraisal of the information at hand, taken to be incomplete and evolving".

Is a less efficient fighter class inferior game design in your opinion? Or superior? Or what? Do better games have more efficient fighters or something? I don't get it.

I am pretty sure you get that "Fighter is less effective at fighting" is worse than "fighter is more effective at fighting" when doing a comparison concerning fighting, right? I mean, we're talking about meeting a stated goal - fighting.

 

[Dausuul]

Your choice, of course. I didn't mention item shops though.

There are enough items that acts are either replacers or enhancers on the charts that I suspect it would be unlikely to not hit any of them if the treasure charts were being used in campaign play. Additionally, since you are going to 20th level and all spell casters are capable of making permanent magic items by their mid-teens, it was also possible for a character who did manage to lose the item lottery to acquire them through their friends and associates.

I don't have an AD&D DMG handy, but I do have an OSRIC PDF. Assuming they're using the same tables, it's not unlikely at all. I found five Strength-boosting items: Ring of three wishes, gauntlets of ogre power, ioun stone (pale blue rhomboid), belt of giant strength, and manual of gainful exercise. For each roll on the item tables, the combined probability to get any of these is less than 0.12%. That means you would, on average, need to find 800 magic items to get one that boosted your Strength.

As for making magic items, good luck convincing the party wizard to burn Constitution points so you can get a bonus to hit. By the time the wizard gets 8th-level spells, she has better people to make magic items for, like herself.

 

[Morrus]

Ah I see the problem. You've conflated "value judgement" with "moral or emotional judgement".

No, no. The people who used words like "inflammatory" and "misleading" were the ones who added the moral component to which I'm objecting. I'd have not even raised an eyebrow had people not been throwing those aspersions around.

I think I've said it several times, but I'll say it again - disagreeing with the article is fine. Casting aspersions on the author for it is not.

I am pretty sure you get that "Fighter is less effective at fighting" is worse than "fighter is more effective at fighting" when doing a comparison, right? I mean, we're talking about meeting a stated goal - fighting.

It's worse at fighting. It's not necessarily worse at being part of a game. A version of 3E where the fighter gets a +1,000,000 BAB isn't better than one where he doesn't, but yes, as you say, that fighter is better at fighting. I haven't and wouldn't claim otherwise. The game is worse for it, though.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't really know how to phrase it any other way. The value judgement I was referring to is about the game not the fighter.

I don't see the level of ability of a fighter in a game to be a statement of that game's quality.

But that's not the topic Morrus. We're not talking about the game's overall quality - we're talking about the ability of the game to maintain backwards compatibility. The author is implying "the game will have more trouble maintaining backwards compatibility because relative levels of combat effectiveness have significantly changed". So yeah it's not about the fighter OR the game in general - it's about the game's ability to be compatible with prior adventures and characters from prior versions of the game.

I don't know why people are upset because someone doesn't think a fighter in an upcoming game is as powerful as a fighter in an old one*.

Nobody is upset about that as far as I can tell (and now I think you're the one ascribing motives here). We're upset about the conclusion that, because of that disparity, the game will not be as backwards compatible as Mearls and company have said it would be.

This, I might add, in the context of actual old modules being used to playtest the game, with Mearls and company doing so in a video. We already know it works pretty well in terms of backwards compatibility - despite the author's conclusion that there is massive disparity in power levels which would harm such compatibility.