D&D General Why is tradition (in D&D) important to you? [+]

[HammerMan]

As an aside, in a + thread about tradition, you seem pretty intent on complaining about it. Do you know what a "+" indicator means? (not snarky, serious question).

I don't know of an "official" rule on it, but my understanding is we must add to the discussion, and if everyone agrees there is nothing to discus... I thumbs up a dozen things every time I am on here, I don't normally post "100% agree" I talk when there is something to discus...

 

[HammerMan]

I can tell you why I do it. A part of me just likes looking at bigger numbers.

I've learned that 5e doesn't care if you have a 14, 16, or 20. Things are going to be a challenge no matter what, because the numbers just don't make that big of a difference, so I don't go out of my way to optimize the numbers. However, I'd rather look at 17 in the big box and the +3 in the small one.

yup...

If I made a retro clone that set stats from 1-100 but the bonuses only started at 51 being +1, and 100 being +5 having a 98 Str would sound and feel stronger then having a 91, or an 83... we could even make an argument that we are pre trained to under stand 1-100 as %, so that would be intuitive... and again there is no reason to do it, no reason not to do it... bigger numbers feel bigger, but us D&D players have a tradition and a mindset of 3-18 so we picture it easy.

It's actually reminds me of when my buddies introduced me to YUGIOH the card game... you start with 8,000 life and the cards (almost) all have thousands of attack and defense. I joked then you could chop all the numbers in half and remove a 0 and have the same game... but it is based on an anime/manga, and again those writers knew a 3,000 attack blue eyes white dragon and a 2,500 attack dark magician FEELS more powerful then 150 attack blue eyes white dragon and a 125 attack dark magician, but if you had 400 life points to start instead of 8,000 it would be VERY similar even if not the same.

Magic uses monsters (unless there has been serious power creep since my craw worm days) that are 1/1 - 6/6 for attack and defense and you have 20 life points... Yugioh isn't better for having bigger numbers (but it isn't worse either).

 

[HammerMan]

With 6 stats and a die roll method that boosts the expected result to 12 instead of 10, sure, you do get things skewing a little higher and the chances of getting a 17+ in a stat do increase (I'd take issue with the claim of MASSIVE!!1!). But that doesn't approximate a flat distribution. The most frequent bonus will still be +1 and those are a lot more likely than +3 or +4. Either way, the assumption the rules make is that stats are distributed along something much closer to a normal distribution than a flat one.

dropping 7 dice yes each one has a 1 in 6 chance of landing on any number, but for the most part it will over time bend toward the average (3). you will roll some 1s (a -1 stat) some 6s (a +4) but over all I bet if you make... you know what let me see

7d6 (I put in order cause my brain does that)
1 5,5,4,2,2,2,1 this generates +3(16-17)x2 and +2 (14-15) and 0 (10-11)x3... these stats suck
2 6,5,4,3,3,3,1 this generates +4(18+), +3(16-17) +2(14-15), then +1(12-13)x3.... not bad
3 3,3,3,3,2,1,1 this gives +2(14-15)x4 0 (10-11) and a -1 (8-9)... can be played but do not like
4 6,6,4,2,1,1,1 this gives +4(18+)x2, +2(14-15) 0 (10-11) -1 (8-9)x2... damn such a good and bad character...

I rolled 28 dice (I rolled the same 7 cause I mean why not) so that shouldn't really statically equal out but lets see... total 83 average 2.96 so only slightly below average...

And, while that is traditional, it's a pretty fundamental assumption throughout D&D character design that bonuses that deviate from +0 should be less frequent (rolled)/more expensive (bought with points) the better they are. Do you think there's something wrong with that design?

no, not something wrong, just something we do by rote and have as tradition of... if we built a new game from the ground up would 3-18 be our go to? I don't even know. I know this. When I started in 2e having above an 18 in anything (other then with belt of giant str) was unheard of... the tales of a Int 20 wiz or wis 20 cleric would not only be legendary in game, but in the group out of game as well. Now when we play high level having a 20 stat is pretty common (and having a 25 was not a big deal in 3e)

Just because something is a tradition doesn't make it wrong. Just because it is a tradition doesn't make it right (some sacred cows NEED to be made into hamburg) But as you see not just with you but with other posters, just pointing out it didn't HAVE to be that way make you feel weird and defensive.

I assume back when gary did this d6's were some of the only dice they had. now we have so many I don't even know all the variables... but you can make a system roll 3d8, or 3d10, or even 3d12. I remember Darksun had you roll 5d4...

but you can see at least 1 poster wont play a system of D&D (or adjacent) that changed to just modifier.

 

[HammerMan]

With feats (specifically, the half-ASI feats) you need some scale that isn't just the integers -x to +y, because the half-steps still mean something.

thats a good one... you can also add that we have races that add +1 to a stat too (so sometimes +1 mod sometimes not) but again do you need that? I don't know... but we have them for tradition.

Heck the names of the stats... is Wisdom and Charisma in 5e the same as they were in 1978?

if you rename them Muscle, agility, health, intellect, perception, personality would you even notice... would it matter. At least twice in the games lifetime we changed the order they appear, but I always think of them as the order 2e did them.

 

[Umbran]

thats a good one... you can also add that we have races that add +1 to a stat too (so sometimes +1 mod sometimes not) but again do you need that? I don't know... but we have them for tradition.

So, "do you need that" is not the question^*.

The point is that there is design space in the half-steps that the game actually uses for things. It is not there only for sake of tradition - in fact, in terms of "tradition" using that space only dates to 3e. Much traditional D&D was played without using this space. So, you could actually say that prior to 3e, the scale was only for tradition, but now it has mechanical relevance.



*The question, "Do we need that?" is incomplete as stated, and cannot be answered. It needs a referent - Do we need that to do <thing>?

 

[Cadence]

thats a good one... you can also add that we have races that add +1 to a stat too (so sometimes +1 mod sometimes not) but again do you need that? I don't know... but we have them for tradition.

Heck the names of the stats... is Wisdom and Charisma in 5e the same as they were in 1978?

if you rename them Muscle, agility, health, intellect, perception, personality would you even notice... would it matter. At least twice in the games lifetime we changed the order they appear, but I always think of them as the order 2e did them.

I think one of the things about "tradition" is that changing things just for the sake of being different will annoy some people a lot. I can picture going from Wisdom to Perception having some in game justification to make it clear exactly how Wisdom differs from Int and Con and maybe getting a pass from even a lot of "traditionalists" if it was well justified. Changing the order put all of the physical stats first and mental stats second which could be argued made a bit more organizational sense given they didn't just line up with a few core classes. Going from Str->Muscle, Dex-> Agility, Con -> Health, Int -> Intellect, Chr-> Personality don't seem to have much of a purpose except to cheese people off and I think it would grate at a lot of players' souls. Same as if which dice are used doesn't really matter, so we're going to switch from d20 to something else for no particularly large gain.

 

[HammerMan]

So, "do you need that" is not the question^*.

The point is that there is design space in the half-steps that the game actually uses for things. It is not there only for sake of tradition - in fact, in terms of "tradition" using that space only dates to 3e. Much traditional D&D was played without using this space. So, you could actually sat that prior to 3e, the scale was only for tradition, but now it has mechanical relevance.



*The question, "Do we need that?" is incomplete as stated, and cannot be answered. It needs a referent - Do we need that to do <thing>?

I would say pre 3e it was a VERY different game (attribute wise) you needed higher stats to get bonuses, and 9 was considered average, you (like i said up thread) were not expected to see 18's let alone above them. However I liked that ever pt mattered MORE (at least in 2e). a 13 str and a 12 str are both +1 to all rolls now... in 2e that was a 5% chance change on skills (non weapon prof) and % different on bend bars lift gates... but If i remember right (don't quote me here) neither gave a bonus to hit, maybe it did to damage.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think one of the things about "tradition" is that changing things just for the sake of being different will annoy some people a lot. I can picture going from Wisdom to Perception having some in game justification to make it clear exactly how Wisdom differs from Int and Con and maybe getting a pass from even a lot of "traditionalists" if it was well justified. Changing the order put all of the physical stats first and mental stats second which could be argued made a bit more organizational sense given they didn't just line up with a few core classes. Going from Str->Muscle, Dex-> Agility, Con -> Health, Int -> Intellect, Chr-> Personality don't seem to have much of a purpose except to cheese people off and I think it would grate at a lot of players' souls. Same as if which dice are used doesn't really matter, so we're going to switch from d20 to something else for no particularly large gain.

The often-made claim that D&D, or other games, "change things just for the sake of change" is something I think truly rarely happens, if at all. There's always a reason for the change, the author of the change feels that it will improve the game in some way. I highly doubt game designers are ever sitting around the conference table saying, "Guys, we need to change something! How about changing Wisdom to Perception? No reason, we just need to change something!"

Personally, I think when someone complains about "change for the sake of change" . . . that's really code for "I don't like this change." It is an appeal to tradition over innovation.

 

[TwoSix]

In the attribute section the large circles had written in large print +3, +1, 0, etc.. in the very small inset box was written a very tiny 16, 12, 10, etc. I pointed out to them that it was backwards from how we usually did it and they said "That doesn't make sense to me. Why would I put the thing I never use in the big circle and the thing I always look at in the small box?"

I changed to writing my character sheets that way a few years back. That player is absolutely right.

 

[Cadence]

The often-made claim that D&D, or other games, "change things just for the sake of change" is something I think truly rarely happens, if at all. There's always a reason for the change, the author of the change feels that it will improve the game in some way. I highly doubt game designers are ever sitting around the conference table saying, "Guys, we need to change something! How about changing Wisdom to Perception? No reason, we just need to change something!"

Personally, I think when someone complains about "change for the sake of change" . . . that's really code for "I don't like this change." It is an appeal to tradition over innovation.

I don't think many successful game franchises do that too often either... but I was responding to the specific thing brought up by the poster who asked about name switches that seemed just like choosing synonyms for five of the existing stats.

I'm guessing that most big revisions contain a few things that the author misjudged or don't carry the intended benefit in a way seen by many players. In that case it feeling like "change for the sake of change" might be a natural reaction.