D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Oofta]

I thought it was obvious I meant he is not magical in the narrative (where he works alongside people who actually use magic or have actual super powers).

Oh, well.

But that's just saying that anything you decide is not supernatural is not supernatural because you've decided it isn't based on your narrative. Words becomes meaningless if you do that.

By that same logic, nothing in D&D is supernatural because magic is not unnatural in that world. Magic is supernatural in our world because it doesn't exist. Supernatural means "above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena" in a world were magic exists it is explainable as a magical phenomena. It also strips all useful meaning from the word.

Gah ... and here I go with my "blah, blah, blah". Dang writer's block.

 

[Oofta]

Here's the thing: D&D already has non-supernatural people doing things that "can't be explained by any known laws of physics."

NO warrior should be able to significantly harm a dragon of that size with his sword. In D&D, people kill giants by hitting their ankles! They somehow survive a face full of breath weapon. And on, and on...

So, yeah, throwing your daggers to daze multiple opponents is really not asking for much.

Hunters used to kill mastadons with rocks and spears. That didn't make them supernatural. Or to quote Arnie from the old Predator movie "If it bleeds we can kill it".

 

[Eric V]

Hunters used to kill mastadons with rocks and spears. That didn't make them supernatural. Or to quote Arnie from the old Predator movie "If it bleeds we can kill it".

Sure, but... Mastodon in no way = dragon/giant/fill-in-the-blank

 

[Manbearcat]

Hunters used to kill mastadons with rocks and spears. That didn't make them supernatural. Or to quote Arnie from the old Predator movie "If it bleeds we can kill it".

A hunting party of 8-12 paleolithic hunters...

...herding relatively stupid (certainly compared to Ancient Red Dragons!) megafauna (which weighed about 12,000 lbs) into kill-boxes...

...to shower them with spears from relative safety (especially compared to actually wading into melee) and let them bleed out (or trample each other or run off of a cliff - a common set-up)...


How...does that remotely compare to a single warrior wading into melee with a creature of god-like intelligence, that is 7 * the weight and many times the size and can generate orders of magnitude times the force of megafauna, that can fly, with jaws and teeth like a Megaladon, that can fill an enormous volume of area with incinerating fire, with a burning inferno aura, covered in scales harder than enchanted steel...

...and actually in its own lair where it has all the advantages possible (rather than in a kill-box).

---

These two things couldn't be further from one another.

 

[Eric V]

But that's just saying that anything you decide is not supernatural is not supernatural because you've decided it isn't based on your narrative. Words becomes meaningless if you do that.

Ummm...really not sure what to respond. It's not my narrative in this case, it's DC Comics narrative.

In that narrative, Batman has no super powers nor does he use magic. Zatanna uses magic and Martian Manhunter uses super powers. Zatanna can polymorph her opponent, MM can mind control his enemy. Batman can do neither, but he CAN still do some cool things in accordance with his skill set (like the dagger toss power mentioned before).

4e lets my rogue imitate Batman in that way. No, not polymorphing or creating walls of fire, but still doing something uniquely cool despite not having spells. And, like Batman, my toon is doing it through skill, not something supernatural.

 

[Oofta]

Sure, but... Mastodon in no way = dragon/giant/fill-in-the-blank

Our ancestors were not wielding high grade steel weapons and clad head to toe in armor. Since dragons/giants/fill-in-the-blank are imaginary creatures, the capability or inability to kill them is also imaginary. I can't imagine hunting a grizzly bear solo armed with nothing but a spear but people have done it. I think people are far more dangerous if properly trained and equipped than you give them credit for.

But again ... this is meaningless opinion. On both our sides. Stop. Please.

 

[Eric V]

They're a start...

No, I mean more in terms of underlying chassis. Some examples:

Different level-advance rates a la 1e-2e;
Different mechanics e.g. Cleric casting mechanics are not the same as Bard casting mechanics are not the same as Wizard...;
Knights, Paladins and Cavaliers use a different combat matrix in honourable combat (or tournaments) than in mass melee;
Multiclassing works differently (or not at all) depending what combination of classes you're trying to combine;
Some class-skill combinations use d%, others use d20, sometimes it's roll-over, sometimes it's roll-under, etc., depending on the level of granularity and intended outcome probabilities required;
Etc.

And then there's resource management: does everyone get their spells and-or hit points back at the same rate, etc., but that's at a different level than what I'm thinking of.

Ok, so basically 1e or 2e. I disagree slightly with some of your points (roles are more mechanically-defined in 4e than 1e; casting mechanics are not terribly differentiated between casters), but otherwise it's a good statement about how you like 1e. Myself, I don't see how your 1st, 4th, and 5th points make the game more enjoyable, but that really is a matter of taste.

 

[Eric V]

Our ancestors were not wielding high grade steel weapons and clad head to toe in armor. Since dragons/giants/fill-in-the-blank are imaginary creatures, the capability or inability to kill them is also imaginary. I can't imagine hunting a grizzly bear solo armed with nothing but a spear but people have done it. I think people are far more dangerous if properly trained and equipped than you give them credit for.

But again ... this is meaningless opinion. On both our sides. Stop. Please.

So, just to understand your opinion, do you believe that

Human ancestors vs. Mastadon = D&D party (with no magic) vs dragon?

Is that your opinion? My own is that it's orders of magnitude different (for all the reasons @Manbearcat explained).

Not arguing, mind, just wanted to be sure I understood you correctly.

 

[Oofta]

So, just to understand your opinion, do you believe that

Human ancestors vs. Mastadon = D&D party (with no magic) vs dragon?

Is that your opinion? My own is that it's orders of magnitude different (for all the reasons @Manbearcat explained).

Not arguing, mind, just wanted to be sure I understood you correctly.

My opinion is that D&D is heroic fantasy and there are plenty of stories of people with no magical or supernatural abilities confronting and winning fights against dragons. Just like John McClane could take out dozens of trained mercenaries by himself.

It's also my opinion that this discussion is pointless, but I have a bad habit of responding to people that ask direct questions. Buh-bye.

 

[Manbearcat]

My point, as its always been, is that I can imagine what it would take for a human/demi-human to wade into melee with an Ancient Red Dragon...in its own lair...and not only survive...but to slay the mythological beast.

The thing is, if I were building a model for it to happen, I wouldn't parameterize the human/demi-human with earth-like limits. Even with magical armaments, I'm confident that if I did...and even if I instantiated it 10,000 times...not a single model run would emerge with the human/demi-human surviving, let alone slaying the beast.

The only way that I can conceive of a model run spitting out "human survived, dragon slain" is if I tuned the physical parameters of the human WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY beyond what our humans are capable of.

---

Put another way, if you put Jon Jones (arguably the greatest melee combatant, with the greatest physical profile, in the history of the human race) in magical armaments, trained him to human perfection with his weaponry...and put him in the lair of an Ancient Red Dragon?

He's toast.

Let him do it 10,000 times.

He's toast 10,000 times.

And not one of those 10,000 times would there even be a moment of drama. It would be instant anti-climax all the way down.

People often talk of "breaking my immersion" and "verisimilitude". To my mind, there is little more "immersion breaking" than the idea of Jon Jones in magical armaments defeating an Ancient Dragon in mortal combat. That is just not in the realm of remotely conceivable.