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

[Oofta]

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.

Yes and no. When it comes to tradition, there's a tradition in D&D that different classes frequently have different mechanics. Wizards have have to put a spells into a book. A cleric can change up their spell book first thing in the morning. Both have to decide when they wake up what they're going to have ready for the day, although it's a little more flexible now. Simple fighters and rogues? Expert weapon users and martial characters with some optional spin to do magic here and there.

That's why 4E didn't "feel" like D&D to a lot of people. That basic paradigm was broken (until essentials but then it was too little too late), the tradition of each class having a unique structure with occasional minor cross-over was gone.

So yes, it's just a subjective judgement. It's a game, what else is there? On the other hand I would say no because change isn't inherently good or bad. Sometimes change breaks so much with tradition that it no longer feels like the same game. So on topic, the tradition of each class having a different planning and play structure with options to mix it up a bit is part of D&D's appeal to me.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yes and no. When it comes to tradition, there's a tradition in D&D that different classes frequently have different mechanics. Wizards have have to put a spells into a book. A cleric can change up their spell book first thing in the morning. Both have to decide when they wake up what they're going to have ready for the day, although it's a little more flexible now. Simple fighters and rogues? Expert weapon users and martial characters with some optional spin to do magic here and there.

That's why 4E didn't "feel" like D&D to a lot of people. That basic paradigm was broken (until essentials but then it was too little too late), the tradition of each class having a unique structure with occasional minor cross-over was gone.

So yes, it's just a subjective judgement. It's a game, what else is there? On the other hand I would say no because change isn't inherently good or bad. Sometimes change breaks so much with tradition that it no longer feels like the same game. So on topic, the tradition of each class having a different planning and play structure with options to mix it up a bit is part of D&D's appeal to me.

No.

(Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your response, it doesn't seem to connect to my post)

The changes to 4E were not "just for the sake of change". The designers had reasons for all of those changes, they felt they were objectively making the game better in various ways.

Of course, not everyone agreed that those changes were good changes . . . . and that's okay of course . . . . but the changes were not made just to make 4E different from 3E alone.

 

[HammerMan]

No.

(Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your response, it doesn't seem to connect to my post)

The changes to 4E were not "just for the sake of change". The designers had reasons for all of those changes, they felt they were objectively making the game better in various ways.

Of course, not everyone agreed that those changes were good changes . . . . and that's okay of course . . . . but the changes were not made just to make 4E different from 3E alone.

Also 4e was in response to 3e, as much as 3e was in response to 2e...

4e change was about breaking traditions 100% (some good some bad) with class balance being a big one... and for 5e they went back (although not as far).

I would argue that basic-2nd edition the classes had a sembelence of balance, but with spell casters edgeing out as levels went up. 3e was 100% caster supremacy. all those little annoying things that wizard player (clerics too but not as much) hated that held them back (haste ages you a year, % chance to learn spells, maxnumber of spells per level) and they then gave even more power to some casters (bards, clerics, others) but also over all changes to the system itself benfited casters (Spell DCs instead of class based saves, and HD continueing through 20+ levels, and Con mod to hp being higher) taking some of the drawback away like swapping magic resistance (% chance to just negate) to Spell Resistance (number you will get better and better at hitting as you level).

by the time 4e came around enough of us (Yes, me, my group HATED 3e for caster supremacy and are mad about 5e bringing it back in someways) it was very much change not for changes sake but so people who want to play fighters and rogues BUT also be able to playa the same level as the cleric or wizard...

5e was a snap back (to tradition) in making it harder to make a non magic character that keeps up... and they doubled down on it by making almost everyone magic in some way...

 

[Oofta]

No.

(Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your response, it doesn't seem to connect to my post)

The changes to 4E were not "just for the sake of change". The designers had reasons for all of those changes, they felt they were objectively making the game better in various ways.

Of course, not everyone agreed that those changes were good changes . . . . and that's okay of course . . . . but the changes were not made just to make 4E different from 3E alone.

They chose to change the very structure of classes, fundamentally taking the game in a different direction. Previous editions had refined things, this was a pretty radical shift. If they had not been changing things for the sake of change they probably would have ended up with something more along the lines of 5E. That's why it felt like change for the sake of change.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

To-hit/damage were +0 at both Str 12 and 13. Most '+' bonuses didn't start until 15 (and most '-' penalties didn't start until at least as low as 7).

 

[Cadence]

They chose to change the very structure of classes, fundamentally taking the game in a different direction. Previous editions had refined things, this was a pretty radical shift. If they had not been changing things for the sake of change they probably would have ended up with something more along the lines of 5E. That's why it felt like change for the sake of change.

I want to type something about the difference between revision and re-envisioning.

In one sense Thanksgiving dinner is meat and starch. More specifically though is it Turkey w/maybe ham, mashed potatoes, stuffing/dressing, sweet potatoes, and maybe mac and cheese? Deep frying the Turkey instead of baking and having pork roast instead of ham for the second seems like a revision. Is Chicken w/maybe venison and baked potatoes, rice, au gratin potatoes, and maybe spaghetti still just a revision because it's a poultry w/maybe non-beef-meat a potato, another starch, another kind of potato, and a noodle dish- or has it re-envisioning or something new. Going for steak and baked potato feels like a totally different game.

(I have no idea why I'm capitalizing poultry types; the ham and mac and cheese aren't at our table, but I've been in the south for a while and it would feel odd to leave them off the list).

 

[HammerMan]

They chose to change the very structure of classes, fundamentally taking the game in a different direction. Previous editions had refined things, this was a pretty radical shift. If they had not been changing things for the sake of change they probably would have ended up with something more along the lines of 5E. That's why it felt like change for the sake of

didn't we get asked not to argue about 4e?

o-hit/damage were +0 at both Str 12 and 13. Most '+' bonuses didn't start until 15 (and most '-' penalties didn't start until at least as low as 7).

thank you my books are not near me and I can't remember... I thought it was 14 or 15

 

[Dire Bare]

They chose to change the very structure of classes, fundamentally taking the game in a different direction. Previous editions had refined things, this was a pretty radical shift. If they had not been changing things for the sake of change they probably would have ended up with something more along the lines of 5E. That's why it felt like change for the sake of change.

Yes . . . the game was fundamentally different from what came before. However . . . no, nevermind.

Sure, WotC changed up 4E for no reasons other than, "Hey, let's make things different!".

 

[HammerMan]

Yes . . . the game was fundamentally different from what came before. However . . . no, nevermind.

Sure, WotC changed up 4E for no reasons other than, "Hey, let's make things different!".

lol... it's hard not to argue about 4e when people keep baiting you with these things... 4e upset tradition and as such we got a snap back with 5e...

 

[Oofta]

Yes . . . the game was fundamentally different from what came before. However . . . no, nevermind.

Sure, WotC changed up 4E for no reasons other than, "Hey, let's make things different!".

Even changing things like changing Wisdom to Perception could be defined as not changing things for the sake of change if someone thought Perception was a better description than Wisdom whether or not I agree. Changing a core tradition of how classes were structured felt like change for the sake of change no matter how well intentioned. How well it was implemented (they've admitted to being under a lot of pressure to release) is another issue.

As far as "arguing" about 4E @HammerMan , I'm not. People like what they like. I burned out on 4E after a couple years of playing, you may have thought it was the best thing ever. I'm just trying to explain why some people felt the edition changed a lot of things for the sake of change. There are plenty of things that have changed that I thought changed for the better and others I do not. Editions of D&D are no different.