What is the essence of D&D

[Zardnaar]

Not really. Err, not that counter opinions don't matter, but, rather, he's not really making an opinion claim.

It's a pretty well supportable claim.

1. Every edition of D&Dhas added more magic to the game. At least up to 5e which has actually scaled it back somewhat at least in terms of sheer number of spells. OTOH, 33 of 36 classes in the PHB can use magic as opposed to the 3 classes in Basic/Expert which could.

2. Magic has to be magical - this is repeated often enough that it is pretty commonly held.

3. Magic must be able to do more than non-magical things. So, a 1st level wizard casting Jump to jump 60 feet is perfectly fine but a 23rd level rogue trying to do the same thing is not.

4. It is always acceptable to justify things with magic. Anything which cannot be justified in the real world MUST be justified with magic.

5. Every edition of the game is either impossible or very, very difficult to play without casters except for the one edition that many claim isn't D&D, 4e.

6. You are expected to find more and more powerful magic items every adventure. It's an extremely rare module that doesn't have any magic items to be found.

Did I miss anything?

Magic is integral to the essence of D&D. How powerful it is and how it operates in the context of the game is not.

4E didn't tank primarily because of the magic. Casuals didn't grok powers and a tactical skirmish game is more niche than beer n pretzels D&D.

Flaw 1.
Making D&D a skirmish game.

Flaw 2.
Powers.

Note most are gone or vary by class? Designers of 5E knew what they could sell. Mearls knew it in 2010, 5E design started 2011.

 

[Hussar]

Magic is integral to the essence of D&D. How powerful it is and how it operates in the context of the game is not.

4E didn't tank primarily because of the magic. Casuals didn't grok powers and a tactical skirmish game is more niche than beer n pretzels D&D.

Flaw 1.
Making D&D a skirmish game.

Flaw 2.
Powers.

Note most are gone or vary by class? Designers of 5E knew what they could sell. Mearls knew it in 2010, 5E design started 2011.

See, you're conflating the economics end of things with perception. I mean, 3e tanked as well, remember. There's a reason we got 3.5 a year early and then 4e not that long after that. 3e is hardly a stellar success. But, that doesn't matter.

People don't look at 3e and claim that it isn't D&D. 3e is hardly as divisive as 4e was. Even 2e wasn't as divisive as 4e was. Whether 4e succeeded monetarily is irrelevant to the discussion. What IS relevant is the perception that 4e isn't D&D and the reasons behind that perception.

Which have nothing whatsoever to do with how much money it made.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You can do the same in any rpg. The question is whether or not the feel the system brings is compatible with the genre and setting.

I mean, there was a guy who used AD&D 1E for Traveller's OTU.

There's a big difference between Can and Should. And "can be made to work" vs "works rather well"...

5E for low-fantasy? sure. For realistic Rome? not to a satisfying level without major work.

For Sci-Fi? for many, the core of character gen is counter to sci-fi: Class and Level.

So one CAN do Sci-Fi in 5E, but one probably should not, and even if one does, it's unlikely to work really well for most potential players.

D20 suffered from many unsuitable adaptations. Fading Suns d20 comes immediately to mind.

Nah.

3e era d20 wasn’t as robust a game as 5e, for one thing.

For another, class and level is hardly antithetical to science fiction.

For a third and most important point, you seem to have ignored a rather key part of my post. “With an amount of work relative to how ‘Fantasy’ it is.” Making hard sci-fi or “realistic Rome” is going to benefit best from purpose built rules.

Building fantasy space opera with sci-fi elements works just fine with a new set of classes and new gear. Hell, new subclasses could probably do 80% of the player option work.
Fantasy alt-history Rome isn’t hard at all to do with 5e. At most I’d use the classes from Adventures in Middle Earth, and that only if I want low fantasy AU Rome.
But like, Shadowrun, Star Wars? Easy as lyin’.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And you're denying people's feeling, seems to be a fairly common tactic. I made it to level 8 and gave up.

It reminded me of the minis game. It was designed by the same people. Wasn't exact of course in even gets a mention in Art and Arcana.

It was designed from the ground up as a tactical skirmish game in WotC own words. That's what makes it unique, if you like that sort of thing great, most didn't.

I didn't mind D&DM but it was in addition to 3.5 not a replacement for it.

I’m not denying feelings, I’m denying nonsensical arguments about the nature of something that are so far from reality as to be akin to someone describing Lord of The Rings while criticizing Star Wars.

4e has tactics, sure. It also has more support for non combat play than any other edition, more lore per page of rulesbook than most, and facilitated role playing for people who actually tried to play it as written instead of flailing about it not being whatever previous edition they preferred more than most editions.

I mean, it’s like the “every power is the same” arguments. Literally objectively false, but they persist regardless. No one who actually read the powers and used them in play as they are written could possibly walk away thinking that was true. To get 5 powers that genuinely do the same thing you’d have to crack open the character builder and sift through every class with all sources turned on, and even then they’d each be different as a result of core class features.

OTOH, I had a group all through 4e that literally could not have cared less about tactical play if their lives depended on it, who all loved very minute of playing it, some of whom became dnd nerds again or for the first time because of 4e.

The fact is, 4e divided the fan base because it was presented so differently, because vocal “haters” screeched their hate at literally any mention of it, and because people didn’t like that fighters could do seemingly impossible stuff.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I mean, it’s like the “every power is the same” arguments. Literally objectively false, but they persist regardless. No one who actually read the powers and used them in play as they are written could possibly walk away thinking that was true. To get 5 powers that genuinely do the same thing you’d have to crack open the character builder and sift through every class with all sources turned on, and even then they’d each be different as a result of core class features.

Rather than calling people liars when they report this reaction to 4E, have you considered how they could have sincerely formed this impression in spite of the powers not literally being the same? That seems like a pretty outrageous strawman, to be honest: I would be extremely surprised if anyone in the history of the edition war has actually asserted that every power is literally the same. So maybe explore the possibility that, to the players in question, they're similar enough to feel repetitive (an impression perhaps exacerbated by the fact that they're presented as page after page of identically-formatted stat blocks).

 

[Zardnaar]

Powers are repetitive and soak up page count.

Previous editions had spells but they weren't as repetitive. 4E had nothing like 2E or 3E illusions, nothing that could reward clever play. It was lists if damage dice with maybe some effect.

 

[Coroc]

Not really. Err, not that counter opinions don't matter, but, rather, he's not really making an opinion claim.

It's a pretty well supportable claim.

1. Every edition of D&Dhas added more magic to the game. At least up to 5e which has actually scaled it back somewhat at least in terms of sheer number of spells. OTOH, 33 of 36 classes in the PHB can use magic as opposed to the 3 classes in Basic/Expert which could.

2. Magic has to be magical - this is repeated often enough that it is pretty commonly held.

3. Magic must be able to do more than non-magical things. So, a 1st level wizard casting Jump to jump 60 feet is perfectly fine but a 23rd level rogue trying to do the same thing is not.

4. It is always acceptable to justify things with magic. Anything which cannot be justified in the real world MUST be justified with magic.

5. Every edition of the game is either impossible or very, very difficult to play without casters except for the one edition that many claim isn't D&D, 4e.

6. You are expected to find more and more powerful magic items every adventure. It's an extremely rare module that doesn't have any magic items to be found.

Did I miss anything?

Agree with all except
5. Every edition of the game is either impossible or very, very difficult to play without casters except for the one edition that many claim isn't D&D, 4e.

I do not know 4e to well, I do know that it is all about powers (mechanically) refluffed to whatever the class needs, So instead of what you wrote you could have written: It is easy to refluff magical abilities to mundane sounding abilities mechanically doing the same as their magic fluffed counterparts in 4e.
Whether that counts, I am not sure.
5e is quite easy to play without casters if you allow for resting. Otoh some of the non caster classes e,g, fighters second wind sounds like magical healing refluffed to something abstract mundane, so it is the same.
With this been said, even former editions could be tuned to a no caster scenario, you just would to have to adapt your dm/playstyle to natural healing rests playing a major role.

 

[Zardnaar]

No cleric you do set piece battles and more focus on exploration and RP.

Think a real Ife soldier, 90 to 95% of the time you're not in combat.

 

[Hussar]

Agree with all except
5. Every edition of the game is either impossible or very, very difficult to play without casters except for the one edition that many claim isn't D&D, 4e.

I do not know 4e to well, I do know that it is all about powers (mechanically) refluffed to whatever the class needs, So instead of what you wrote you could have written: It is easy to refluff magical abilities to mundane sounding abilities mechanically doing the same as their magic fluffed counterparts in 4e.
Whether that counts, I am not sure.
5e is quite easy to play without casters if you allow for resting. Otoh some of the non caster classes e,g, fighters second wind sounds like magical healing refluffed to something abstract mundane, so it is the same.
With this been said, even former editions could be tuned to a no caster scenario, you just would to have to adapt your dm/playstyle to natural healing rests playing a major role.

Well, depends on what you count as a caster. I mean, if we're talking about classes that can cast a spell, if you go without casters entirely, then you have, what, 2 fighters, 2 rogue and 1 monk and 1 barbarian class. That's not a very long lived group unless the DM specifically tailors the game for that group. And, frankly, when I tried pitching this to my group to play a real swords and sandals kind of game, they absolutely balked. I had to add in paladins and rangers before they'd even consider it and, out of the six characters, 3 were paladins or rangers. We wound up with just as much magic as any other group.

Maybe a better way of saying it is that every edition of the game expects you to play with casters. Even going back to AD&D, most modules would advise you to have the basic six characters - 3 fighter types, a cleric, wizard and thief. Later edition modules would automatically assume you had casters in the group and would be designed with that in mind - teleport magic, information gathering, etc.

 

[Garthanos]

Just because something's in one edition doesn't make it the essence of D&D. THAC0 come to mind you can switch that out doesn't change the playstyle.

Referencing 3e beng way over powered casters? because all the limits had been stripped (even if the limits were inconsistently implemented before they were at least limits and talented dm?

No cleric you do set piece battles and more focus on exploration and RP.

Ditch every module ever designed, random encounter tables and all the DM advice... there was a reason it was rare, It didnt seem supported not really.