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

[Cadence]

Making a change to suit one's own tastes . . . is making a change for a reason. The author feels that their preference makes a better story or game.

In a shared universe type thing, is the job of the author to make what would be the best product for themselves, or what would be the best product for an intended market the shared universe is targeted at? I wouldn't think those are usually the same thing.

 

[TwoSix]

In a shared universe type thing, is the job of the author to make what would be the best product for themselves, or what would be the best product for an intended market the shared universe is targeted at? I wouldn't think those are usually the same thing.

Sure, but is the best product one that carries a creator's singular vision, or one that panders to the lowest common denominator of the marketplace? (Yes, I know I'm biasing that question. )

Ultimately, you just don't know. You make the best decisions you can with the information you have and feel stupid in hindsight if it doesn't work out.

 

[Oofta]

except in a thread where red moderator voice said to not discuss 4e to get back to tradition, and I have tried, you keep bringing up what you don't like about 4e, even if engaging that threatens others being told not to... So I am asking you, since we are not supposed to argue about what is or is not true of 4e, can we please drop 4e and focus on 1-3 and 5?

I think class structure and abilities being distinct between the classes is an important tradition, at least for me. I only alluded to 4E because it broke from that tradition.

 

[Dire Bare]

In a shared universe type thing, is the job of the author to make what would be the best product for themselves, or what would be the best product for an intended market the shared universe is targeted at? I wouldn't think those are usually the same thing.

Not my point.

You may disagree with the change itself, and you may disagree with the reasoning behind it . . . . but the change isn't without reason. It isn't "for the sake of change".

 

[Hussar]

I think class structure and abilities being distinct between the classes is an important tradition, at least for me. I only alluded to 4E because it broke from that tradition.

See, but, there's the trick.

In 5e, there are really only 3 class structures. Caster, half-caster, non-caster. The notion of each class having distinct structures hasn't been true in a very long time. Like, twenty years long time. If class structures and abilities being distinct between classes is an important tradition, then you should not like 3e, 4e or 5e, all of which standardized class structures.

This is why I get so baffled by these discussions. Why is it so hard to say, "I just don't like X"? Why does it have to be justified? "Oh, I like tradition" - except that "I like tradition" only ever applies when someone doesn't like something. No one ever likes tradition but then claims that a new idea that they like shouldn't be done. "Change for change's sake" is a rhetorical gambit that sets up an unassailable position because there is no way to falsify the statement.

Watching the logical knots that people tie themselves into in order to justify their preferences is a constant source of amusement.

 

[Eric V]

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!".

You tried!

Having read more than a few interviews with the designers behind 4e, they were most certainly not making change just for change's sake. They really believed in the game on its own merits and not simply because it's different.

 

[Oofta]

See, but, there's the trick.

In 5e, there are really only 3 class structures. Caster, half-caster, non-caster. The notion of each class having distinct structures hasn't been true in a very long time. Like, twenty years long time. If class structures and abilities being distinct between classes is an important tradition, then you should not like 3e, 4e or 5e, all of which standardized class structures.

This is why I get so baffled by these discussions. Why is it so hard to say, "I just don't like X"? Why does it have to be justified? "Oh, I like tradition" - except that "I like tradition" only ever applies when someone doesn't like something. No one ever likes tradition but then claims that a new idea that they like shouldn't be done. "Change for change's sake" is a rhetorical gambit that sets up an unassailable position because there is no way to falsify the statement.

Watching the logical knots that people tie themselves into in order to justify their preferences is a constant source of amusement.

Since we don't have an official classification guide for D&D, what makes classes feel different is going to be subjective.

I don't think of clerics and wizards as being the same. One gets access to all spells they're ever going to have the other has to find or learn specific spells. Sorcerers are even more limited and different. Rogues have sneak attack, fighters have multiple attacks and the option of heavy armor, barbarians have rages.

Those all feel unique and distinct to me. It's also been largely true for all editions except 4E. I don't really care how other people do categories. On the other hand in 4E everyone had at will, encounter and daily powers. Same decision points, same structure, same resource management.

So I'm baffled why people have such an issues with other's opinions and judgements. I see a pattern, you don't. It's not "logical knots", just a different perspective. One you don't have to agree with. This is a thread about what traditions are important to you; classes feeling different, having different decision points, have a different feel to me.

 

[Greg K]

I started back with Holmes. Personally, these days, there are a lot of things that I would be willing to jettison and change.

 

[Hussar]

But, here's the thing. If uniqueness and distinction are important to you (and I largely agree actually, I'm a big believer in class niche), that's fine. But, to claim that classes feel the same in 4e because they have the same power structure, but, don't feel the same in other editions, despite the classes being built on the same power structure, it gets rather confusing.

Because you are comparing apples to oranges. Having different armor proficiencies isn't a difference in structure of the class. Everyone has armor proficiencies and they get them at the same time. They may have different proficiencies, but, that's not a structural change. Clerics may have a different spell list than wizards, but, structurally, they function exactly the same way - choose your spells for the day from a list and that's what you have. Having a longer or shorter list of choices isn't a structural difference.

In 4e, I could create two characters with the same class that share pretty much nothing. Completely different abilities and powers. Completely different play as well. You couldn't possible match the customization of a 4e class with any other edition.

So, claims about "uniqueness" seem like such a bizarre criticism. Every fighter in 5e is pretty much the same. At least until 3rd level. And, even then, there isn't a huge difference. And two fighters with the same subclass are going to be virtually identical in play. And, if we go back to AD&D, it's even less unique. Two fighters are going to be nearly identical - the only real difference might be in stats.

Like I said, claiming uniqueness as a tradition in D&D seems like a really strange one to me.

 

[Oofta]

But, here's the thing. If uniqueness and distinction are important to you (and I largely agree actually, I'm a big believer in class niche), that's fine. But, to claim that classes feel the same in 4e because they have the same power structure, but, don't feel the same in other editions, despite the classes being built on the same power structure, it gets rather confusing.

Because you are comparing apples to oranges. Having different armor proficiencies isn't a difference in structure of the class. Everyone has armor proficiencies and they get them at the same time. They may have different proficiencies, but, that's not a structural change. Clerics may have a different spell list than wizards, but, structurally, they function exactly the same way - choose your spells for the day from a list and that's what you have. Having a longer or shorter list of choices isn't a structural difference.

In 4e, I could create two characters with the same class that share pretty much nothing. Completely different abilities and powers. Completely different play as well. You couldn't possible match the customization of a 4e class with any other edition.

So, claims about "uniqueness" seem like such a bizarre criticism. Every fighter in 5e is pretty much the same. At least until 3rd level. And, even then, there isn't a huge difference. And two fighters with the same subclass are going to be virtually identical in play. And, if we go back to AD&D, it's even less unique. Two fighters are going to be nearly identical - the only real difference might be in stats.

Like I said, claiming uniqueness as a tradition in D&D seems like a really strange one to me.

So ... I'm not allowed to have an opinion and point of view that differs from yours?

Good to know.