D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Umbran]

I had asked that you stopped making short sarcastic responses to me...

It was a real-world example of backwards comparability given in analogy. If we start classifying that as sarcasm, discussion on the site is going to grind to a halt very quickly.

 

[Oofta]

It was a real-world example of backwards comparability given in analogy. If we start classifying that as sarcasm, discussion on the site is going to grind to a halt very quickly.

Sometimes I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It was a real-world example of backwards comparability given in analogy. If we start classifying that as sarcasm, discussion on the site is going to grind to a halt very quickly.

I cannot ignore a moderator, so I will ask again; please feel free to make your points without replying to my comments. I would appreciate the courtesy.

Thank you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Are we talking about something else, or the mechanical concerns that GreenTengu brought up? I was specifically referring to those only in my response.

D&D has millions of players who are, by and large, happy with the mechanics as is.

GreenTengu brought up a whole host of weird things that DnD pioneered, many of them without clear justification beyond Gygax and Arneson thought of it.

The position they were opposing was that everything in DnD that comes via tradition has a good reason to remain, because it still serves the original purpose. But, there are many parts of the system which actually could be improved by ideas from other systems. We don't need them to, we don't need to "go play a better game then" but recognizing that puts a starker spotlight on this idea that these Traditions are all remaining for a "functional reason".

On the other hand, if something is broke don't fix it.

That does seem to be many people's opinion, yes

For the most part, it works. There are minor things I'd change but considering that it's the best selling TTRPG ever made I think they did a pretty good job. No game can be or ever will be perfect. Then again, there's another saying that seems appropriate.

Don't let perfection get in the way of good. D&D 5E isn't perfect, but it is good. At least for millions of people.

Right, we aren't that isn't the point.

The point was that an idea was put forth that all of the traditions of DnD have existed, persisted and should be kept. But that is hog-wash, pure and simple. There are a lot of traditional things about DnD that exist because they are Traditional parts of DnD. And usually that is fine, but that doesn't mean we are required to keep them if they start hurting the game.

I love how apparently the fact that 4e attempted radical departures in both lore and mechanics lead to D&D's sales slump, Pathfinder's rise, and the birth of D&D Next as the attempt to create a unity edition of D&D taking from all previous and capturing that spirit has receded into Goldfish Memory at this point.

Surely NOW is there time for a radical reinvention of D&D, right?

I'm sure "Orcs - Unaligned" is just as radical a change to the fabric of the game as creating power cards and having martials learn short-rest and daily abilities.

I mean, let's not get too carried away. HP and all that were examples of wonky traditions that we could change, because frankly they don't have a good justification to exist beyond, well, that's tradition.

But, they also aren't hurting anything, so no one is seriously trying to remove them. They work well enough and we like them. But, there are other traditions that aren't.

 

[Oofta]

...
The point was that an idea was put forth that all of the traditions of DnD have existed, persisted and should be kept. But that is hog-wash, pure and simple. There are a lot of traditional things about DnD that exist because they are Traditional parts of DnD. And usually that is fine, but that doesn't mean we are required to keep them if they start hurting the game.
..

Much like HP, AC, Ability Scores, Skills, weapons, sneak attacks, stealth, the role of magic and spells, Demons, Devils, Celestials ... I'm sure I could go on with things that have been "controversial" in the past.

Most core aspects of the game have been debated off and on since the inception of the game. Don't like alignment? Ignore it. It doesn't have any mechanical impact but it is useful at least now and then for most people.

 

[bulletmeat]

In 2e I played a LG Drow Paladin who got up to level 9. Alignment and level/class restrictions be darned.

When I play my homebrew world (2e, 5e, or C&C) there are no half-orcs (or half-elves) because goblinoids (goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, & bugbears) are all peelings of flesh from one of the gods (all gods are evil in my world) and therefore evil. They reproduce by breaking off a fingure and letting it grow in a cauldron I follow the alignments of the MM with that.

In my 5e Dragonstar campaign coming up, Orcs mainly make up the mercenary and poetry guild. Again, alignment (expectations?) be darned.

My longest lasting character was my CN 1e/2e 13th level wizard Asher Firetoungue who captured her own little demi-plane in on the Great Wheel and ended up w/a freed mind succubus, saved the continent, and secretly assassinated a very good & respectable king for insulting her. We did not use the gender ability modifiers because they were considered asinine and the CN alignment was more to 'do' and 'go' where I pleased. We also used the experience system from RIFTS because it felt better.

Groups use the rules they need, toss the ones they don't, and make up the ones they want. It's been done since BX, 1e, Pathfinder, C&C, heck even Palladium Fantasy. If a few rules, be it alignment, HP, ability scores, etc are taken out of 6e (or something put in you don't like), adjust accordingly. That is the tradition that truly continues with this medium. Just like remakes of movies, books, theater shows people will do with it what they will, be it for good or ill. I think that getting worked up over rules/flavor tradition is not that important. There is always 'that hammer' to work old or new rules into the system you use one way or another, it just takes a little work.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I love how apparently the fact that 4e attempted radical departures in both lore and mechanics lead to D&D's sales slump, Pathfinder's rise, and the birth of D&D Next as the attempt to create a unity edition of D&D taking from all previous and capturing that spirit has receded into Goldfish Memory at this point.

Surely NOW is there time for a radical reinvention of D&D, right?

Isn't it more than a bit of a fallacy to call the side you don't agree with "radical?"

Also, if I'm not mistaken, 4e didn't fail because it was trying to make the game more open, right? It was the planar cosmology changing yet again, multiple gods being replaced by a magical disaster, the game becoming more like a video game, books that people didn't seem to want to buy, and a lot of other factors, right?

I don't think WotC will make a 4e mistake again, and this certainly is not remaking 4e.

 

[Lanefan]

That's my point. They absolutely reinvented the wheel. Multiple times. 3e is not compatible with 2e. 2e is compatible with 1e, but, that's kinda the exception. 4e isn't backwards compatible and neither is 5e.

And in every case since 1e-to-2e that lack of backwards compatibility is a very serious bug; with 3e-3.5e being the only exception because it was compatible.

Had 4e, for example, been made at least vaguely backward-compatible with 3e and this intentionally-continuous evolution been up-front expressed there's no edition war.

The old module remakes have had to be considerably rewritten for the new edition.

Like I said, a 1e wheel and a 5e wheel aren't really the same wheels at all.

To some extent they could be if they'd ever give us decent all-edition all-direction conversion guides that tell us how to make different wheels (modules, creatures, whatever other specific elements) fit on the same car (edition you're playing).

 

[Lanefan]

You see, just because something has been debated "a LONG time" doesn't mean throw it out. It means, try to improve it, or finds ways to keep it, or completely change it, or throw it out. Those are your four options. There is not one, not two, not three, but four.

In fact, there's five.

You left out the obvious option: leave it alone and just let the debates continue.

 

[TheSword]

Well, now isn't that the million dollar question. What's a "radical" change? I mean, if you jump from 1e to 5e, those are not the same game. At all. Virtually nothing of 1e survived the editions other than maybe proper nouns. Mechanically? 5e shares far more DNA with games like Rolemaster than AD&D. It eventually becomes the old saw about the axe. If you've replaced every bit of the axe with new bits that are not the same as the old bits, is it even the same axe anymore?

The game is almost exactly the same. For anyone who isn’t an RPG fanatic they appear. Virtually identical.

• You create a character to act out adventures which are strung through into campaigns.
• The character develops along 20 levels representing their power and progression.
• Your character has 6 stats of which a score of 10 represents an average human.
• You select a race, these races have extra abilities like the ability to see in the dark or sense changes in stone revealing a secret passage. The races change some stats to represent strengths of that race - elves +Dex.
• You have a pool of hit points that increases as you level up. When you take damage this pool is used up and when it reaches 0 you fall unconscious and possibly die.
• There are a number of classes that represent archetypal adventurers. Fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric. Variants like ranger or bard have been added but these follow essentially the same rules.
• Characters select spells (whose names and general function are largely unchanged) that range from level 1 to 9. They can cast these using slots. The number increases as you level up depending on your class in a pyramidal way.
• You make 1d20 rolls and add modifiers depending on what your characters strengths and abilities are.
• Attacking someone requires a d20 roll to hit which is compared against armour class. If successful you roll damage and remove this from the foes hp pool.

I could go on and on. Started a group a year ago for people who had no RPG experience accept for the AD&D Baldurs Gate game. They picked it up almost instantly. Particularly the spell casters.

In everything that matters the editions are almost identical (with the exception of 4th that seems to spin off into its own orbit).