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

[Remathilis]

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.

Well, two things.

Obviously, the term radical can mean different things. Changing the d20 to a d100 for task resolution would be radical, but similarly a dozen small changes can add up to a radical change as well.

Fourth, for example, did a small change called "assign each class a role" (defender, controller, leader, striker) that kindasorta mimicked the classic positions classes have played in D&D and were codified in countless MMOs. That alone shouldn't have been controversial. However, all classes were made to fit into those boxes, often limiting their use in other roles that 3e (and later 5e) could be built for. A fighter HAD to be a defender, his tools were built for taking hits and limiting foes. A bard HAD to be a leader; her tools were built around healing and buffing. Etc. Further, classes that could previously be other roles (like a druid leader or a fighter striker) were initially limited, weak, or required later splat-books and extremely specific builds or subclasses to work. So a small change (lets assign each class a role) lead to HUGE change in class design and identity.

Now, let's take a proposed example: remove evil alignments from all humanoids. Again, it makes sense in context; humanoids should be allowed to choose an alignment (if such a rule even continues to exist). However, that creates the snowball to worldbuilding; where do the good orcs live? where do the evil elves live? If orcs can be equally good or evil, why not ogres? If orcs and goblins are no eviler than elves and dwarves, should the latter be in the PHB (and the latter the MM)? Should campaign guides and module assume more halfling bandits and orc innkeepers? Should every setting (including far darker ones like Greyhawk and Ravenloft) assume multi-species societies living in close proximity? The ramifications of such a change are far more than just removing "Chaotic Evil" off the orc statblock.

Which is why I worry about too many changes coming at once. For the last month, discussions about problematic areas of D&D (such as race, alignment, cultural appropriation, and lesser ones of stereotyping, ableism, misogyny, etc.) have been filling up messageboards and social media. The drumbeat is getting louder. Now, maybe things die down again eventually, but I can't shake the feeling that WotC will need to do more and more to "modernize" D&D, and the issues are going to be much more central to the game than promoting gender-fluid elven deities or removing some adjectives from the Monster Manual. I worry that WotC will make a dozen small changes that lead to a big change in the game, much like how 4e made dozens of "fixes" to outdated concepts and confusing lore that was soundly rejected.

Put another way, the road to Baator is paved in Good Intention.

 

[Lanefan]

Funny, complaining about sarcastic, short answers and then immediately answering me with a short, sarcastic answer.

I mean, after all, let's ignore the fact that our Moldvay Fighter has, at best, a +3 damage bonus and 1 attack per round, while our 2e fighter has 5 attacks every two rounds, minimum possibly with a +4 to hit and +8 to damage, using weapons against Mr. Ogre that deal twice as much damage (Moldvay D6 damage vs Longsword d12 and Shortsword d8). But, yeah, totally compatible systems. No changes at all.

What level is our erstwhile Fighter in this example?

5-per-2 attack rate, using specialization I assume, says 7th? If yes, that explains some of it: the power curve was considerably steeper in 2e (and post-UA 1e) than in Basic, particularly for PCs up to about name level. The monsters, however, rather failed to keep up.

3e dialled this to eleven, making the PC power curve steeper yet but also putting the monsters on the same curve.

 

[Lanefan]

What proportion of campaigns actually went above 20? Nonetheless campaigns in both can run 1-20. Earlier editions can just run longer.

What proportion of campaigns in any edition ever get anywhere near 20, is the better question.

Across the editions a better generalization might be "You start at low level, often 1st, and play to somewhere in the 9th-15th range".

 

[Lanefan]

Much less the fact that the OSR movement existed as a rejection of the present state of the game.

I think the OSR movement exists more as a rejection of the state of the game ten years ago, which is about when OSR really started gathering steam.

5e seems to have put the brakes on OSR to some extent, which is good for 5e and not so good for OSR supporters.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Now, let's take a proposed example: remove evil alignments from all humanoids. Again, it makes sense in context; humanoids should be allowed to choose an alignment (if such a rule even continues to exist). However, that creates the snowball to worldbuilding; where do the good orcs live? where do the evil elves live? If orcs can be equally good or evil, why not ogres? If orcs and goblins are no eviler than elves and dwarves, should the latter be in the PHB (and the latter the MM)? Should campaign guides and module assume more halfling bandits and orc innkeepers? Should every setting (including far darker ones like Greyhawk and Ravenloft) assume multi-species societies living in close proximity? The ramifications of such a change are far more than just removing "Chaotic Evil" off the orc statblock.

I want to zoom in here a bit, because you present questions, but are not thinking them through fully.

Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Humans, Gnomes, Dragonborn, Goliaths, ect ect are all already equally likely to be good or evil per RAW. Where do the evil Elves live? Where they have always lived, same with everything else.

Why would needing to place Good Orcs suddenly become so much more problematic? We've had neutral orc groups before, like the Kingdom of Many-Arrows in the Sword Coast or Eberron Orcs.

The settings like Faerun, Ebberron and Wildemount already assume multi-species societies living in close proximity. I actually even have a Greyhawk Atlas from 3.5 which lists population numbers across multiple city-states and countries. A good number of them have decent sized minority populations of Gnomes, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings.

So, easily half of your concerns are things that the game already is handling, that is the reason why we say it is generally a small change, because it is just emphasizing some of the details we already have established.

 

[Mercurius]

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".

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

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.

In the highlighted parts above, is that is what you interpreted me as saying? That "everything" and "all" of tradition must be kept? If that is the case, I don't know what to say - you're not hearing what I'm saying.

As I said, D&D has changed and will continue to change. 5E is different from previous editons, and future iterations will be different from 5E (although perhaps less so, if WotC can maintain the game's current popularity). I fully embrace that, just as I have embraced every edition change for over thirty years (some more than others). I like the fact that every X-years we get a new version of the game to re-learn and play.

That said, I think there are certain core elements that should and will be preserved, both to maintain what makes D&D unique, and because the vast majority of players are happy with them. Some of those elements are anachronistic, but even those serve a functional reason and support the prime directive of D&D: to facilitate enjoyment.

Out of curiosity, do you think any traditional components of D&D's mechanics "hurt the game?"

 

[Chaosmancer]

In the highlighted parts above, is that is what you interpreted me as saying? That "everything" and "all" of tradition must be kept? If that is the case, I don't know what to say - you're not hearing what I'm saying.

As I said, D&D has changed and will continue to change. 5E is different from previous editons, and future iterations will be different from 5E (although perhaps less so, if WotC can maintain the game's current popularity). I fully embrace that, just as I have embraced every edition change for over thirty years (some more than others). I like the fact that every X-years we get a new version of the game to re-learn and play.

That said, I think there are certain core elements that should and will be preserved, both to maintain what makes D&D unique, and because the vast majority of players are happy with them. Some of those elements are anachronistic, but even those serve a functional reason and support the prime directive of D&D: to facilitate enjoyment.

Out of curiosity, do you think any traditional components of D&D's mechanics "hurt the game?"

Don't remember saying it was you that put forth that idea, so no, I wasn't interpreting what you were saying.

As for the mechanics, there are a few I've found little use for, but they are all hotly contested topics and I don't want to derail this thread by talking about them.

This thread is more about the lore, fluff, and aesthetic, which is are the traditional elements we've been discussing that have some problems that need addressed

 

[Mercurius]

Don't remember saying it was you that put forth that idea, so no, I wasn't interpreting what you were saying.

As for the mechanics, there are a few I've found little use for, but they are all hotly contested topics and I don't want to derail this thread by talking about them.

This thread is more about the lore, fluff, and aesthetic, which is are the traditional elements we've been discussing that have some problems that need addressed

OK, but GreenTengu was talking about mechanics, and I was responding to that - not about traditional lore stuff.

I think what often happens is that things get filtered down and become proxy debates for other things. So we have:

Real world culture stuff
D&D lore stuff
D&D mechanics stuff

(with probably many more levels/contexts)

My personal views on "tradition" shift depending upon context, although there is a consistent basic principle: "Tradition" is a catchall term for everything that came before, and especially everything that has stuck; tradition changes and expands through various forces. Change is inevitable and often positive, except in those cases where human freedom and well-being are diminished.

So, as far as D&D lore and mechanics are concerned, I am happy to embrace anything that improves the game and makes it more enjoyable for as many people as possible. If at any point in that process I find my personal enjoyment hampered, I will either adjust the game to suit my liking or pick a new game to play.

 

[Hussar]

What level is our erstwhile Fighter in this example?

5-per-2 attack rate, using specialization I assume, says 7th? If yes, that explains some of it: the power curve was considerably steeper in 2e (and post-UA 1e) than in Basic, particularly for PCs up to about name level. The monsters, however, rather failed to keep up.

3e dialled this to eleven, making the PC power curve steeper yet but also putting the monsters on the same curve.

1st level.

Weapon specs fighter gives me 3/2. Two weapon fighting takes me to 5/2. My first level 2e fighter can kill a troll in a single round (not likely, but, possible). And that's before stat bonuses.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Fourth, for example, did a small change called "assign each class a role" (defender, controller, leader, striker) that kindasorta mimicked the classic positions classes have played in D&D and were codified in countless MMOs. That alone shouldn't have been controversial. However, all classes were made to fit into those boxes, often limiting their use in other roles that 3e (and later 5e) could be built for. A fighter HAD to be a defender, his tools were built for taking hits and limiting foes. A bard HAD to be a leader; her tools were built around healing and buffing. Etc. Further, classes that could previously be other roles (like a druid leader or a fighter striker) were initially limited, weak, or required later splat-books and extremely specific builds or subclasses to work. So a small change (lets assign each class a role) lead to HUGE change in class design and identity.
/snip

I think this is a fantastic example, but, not in the way you seem to be presenting it.

See, yes, what you are saying is absolutely right. Each class had a role. Where you are going wrong is the presumption that roles were that fixed. A fighter could be a straight defender, true. That was certainly the baseline. But, you could make a fighter a controller or a defender right off the bat. Not even counting the umpteen additional powers that were added later. A bard was a leader, true, because bard's primary function was healing/buffing. But, again, you could make a bard defender, striker or controller without any problem at all.

IOW, the criticisms about roles had more to do with people's inability to actually examine what was being said. People saw roles as straight jackets because they couldn't be bothered actually learning the rules. The notion that a fighter needed splat books to be a striker that wasn't weak is easily disproven. Yet, regardless of how many times it was disproven, the notion remained. "ROLES ARE STRAIGHT JACKETS!" was the cry and no amount of facts could change that.

Which, frankly, is pretty much what's going on here. "We're LOSING THINGS FROM D&D!!!" goes the cry. Never minding the fact that these things have already largely been removed from the game anyway and this discussion was lost five years ago when 5e was released. You wanted alignment in the game? Then you probably should have been fighting to make it actually matter in the game during playtest. But, the game came out, alignment was pushed off to the side, stripped of (nearly) all mechanical effect and we moved on.