D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[Maxperson]

It feels like he was more strongly nature because his ancestor was the king in the north and not the citified south, and it would suck to be in all those woods without any skills for them, rather than a particular gift from Yavanna (as opposed to any of the others).

The nature knowledge of the Dunedain came from the elves and Yavanna. It's why they were so much better at it than the low men.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think a lot of the practical models for early Rangers were colonial frontier fighters, just by nature of the way the way D&D was written. Texas Rangers cosplaying as Aragorn.

I can kinda see that, but even then I wouldn’t call many of the famous frontier rangers of the American expansion anti-nature.

 

[Mordhau]

I can kinda see that, but even then I wouldn’t call many of the famous frontier rangers of the American expansion anti-nature.

I think anti-nature was putting it the wrong way personally. It's more "pro-civilisation", albiet not necessarily unambiguously so.

Anti-nature only really makes sense if we take a very pre-modern view as suggested above and see nature/wilderness as an opposition to civilisation.

Edit: Even then it's really just one perspective on the Ranger, which isn't really coherently anything as a concept.

 

[Nefermandias]

Yes. The skill system always works better when you don't use it.

You jest, but there's a page in the DMG just about that. It's the age long argument about dice vs skilled play.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It feels like he was more strongly nature because his ancestor was the king in the north and not the citified south, and it would suck to be in all those woods without any skills for them, rather than a particular gift from Yavanna (as opposed to any of the others).

His ancestor was the king of a place with great cities. His people weren't associated with the wilderness until they left their homes and became rangers.

 

[Cadence]

His ancestor was the king of a place with great cities. His people weren't associated with the wilderness until they left their homes and became rangers.

How long in the past did that happen?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How long in the past did that happen?

Exactly as long ago as the last of Aragorn's ancestors was king of anything.

 

[Jaeger]

'm not saying the magic system alone explains D&Ds popularity. But it's not solely a sacred cow either. The lack of the specific play experience that D&D magic provides is one of the key reasons I've seen players find games that cover the same basic ground unsatisfying. Not all players (players that only play martial characters don't much care), but many.

I've also found it to be one of the reasons players want to go back to D&D after playing other systems which work so much better in so many ways.

I'm sure people who began playing RPG's with The Dark Eye in Germany, or Sword World in Japan do the same thing.

People like what they are familiar with. Which is usually the first RPG they play. And most people who got into RPG's are most familiar with D&D. Which defines for them what the RPG experience is.

There is nothing inherently special about D&D's system in any edition. In D&D's defense; in the few instances where other systems supplanted D&D in other countries: There is nothing special about those systems either.

It's all about First, Good Enough, and Servicing your customer base.

You jest, but there's a page in the DMG just about that. It's the age long argument about dice vs skilled play.

I don't feel that explicit skill lists are a good fit for Class and level based systems. It's too much like trying to make the game work in two different ways IMHO.

I feel that Barbarians of Lemuria's Careers/Backgrounds as Skills would be a far better fit.

 

[Mort]

I'm sure people who began playing RPG's with The Dark Eye in Germany, or Sword World in Japan do the same thing.

People like what they are familiar with. Which is usually the first RPG they play. And most people who got into RPG's are most familiar with D&D. Which defines for them what the RPG experience is.

There is nothing inherently special about D&D's system in any edition. In D&D's defense; in the few instances where other systems supplanted D&D in other countries: There is nothing special about those systems either.

It's all about First, Good Enough, and Servicing your customer base.

While being first and good enough ARE important, I don't think that's fully it. There was a thread on this issue a while back. Best answer (other than, of course, it's now by far the biggest player in the market) a combination of the leveling system and the huge amount of adventures available for the levels as characters progress.

People criticize the leveling system but players, especially new players seem to take to it much better than the various point systems out there. I've had players outright say they prefer D&D because they want to see their character get from 1-20.

Combine that with the large amount of adventures at each level (to make the DMs job easier by providing prefabricated scenarios that, even if you homebrew, area great resource) and you have a winning combination.

 

[Mordhau]

I'm sure people who began playing RPG's with The Dark Eye in Germany, or Sword World in Japan do the same thing.

People like what they are familiar with. Which is usually the first RPG they play. And most people who got into RPG's are most familiar with D&D. Which defines for them what the RPG experience is.

There is nothing inherently special about D&D's system in any edition. In D&D's defense; in the few instances where other systems supplanted D&D in other countries: There is nothing special about those systems either.

It's all about First, Good Enough, and Servicing your customer base.

Now I'm confused. You quoted my previuos post. Was it unclear?

I don't really understand why you are repeating your first post in different words. I thought I had clarified that I wasn't having this particular argument?

I mean even if my previous response was somehow unclear, it must be at least clear it was a response, so you could ask a question to help me clarify it. Not sure what you're attempting to achieve here, unless this is just an argument you really want to have, in which case I would recommend starting a new thread.