D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[Micah Sweet]

Ok. Perfect. Let's say 5th level.

What is a scenario you would plan for a high level fighter, and how would you expect John McLain to fare in that adventure?

High level fighters should have supernatural abilities, if you're playing that high in a game that doesn't have a gear change (like the domain game).

 

[Aldarc]

There are plenty of not D&D games that do what you want (and 4e). Also, you can option stuff like that if you insist on adding a narrative framework to the game.

Incidentally, there are plenty more not D&D games that do what YOU want. Also, you can option stuff like that if you insist on adding real world realism to the game. In fact, this was Gary Gygax’s advice back in 1978.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, I don't think that's an absolute. 4e has rules for applying character classes to NPCs as well (its a bit different from actually doing up a PC, but there are 'templates' for every PC class to apply it to a monster). NPCs effectively have a 'level' (5e obscures this a bit by calling it CR and using a bit different scale). There's no reason to assume that 'Fighter' is a profession (or Battlemaster for that matter). I mean, I'm not in charge of how you conceive of the game world, I'm just saying it is a perfectly valid way to look at it that PCs are unique and the fact that one has a given ability implies NOTHING about anyone else in the whole game world. I see nothing in 5e which undermines that view as a general thing. I get it, traditionally most classic D&D GMs and products have assumed that class levels are generic descriptions. I just don't and I am pointing out that it goes a long ways to solving people's objections.

But it raises all kinds of new objections, you see. For me, the cure is worse than the disease.

 

[Oofta]

Swarzenegger and Stallone also mostly don't attack directly. They stowaway aboard seaplanes, or cover themselves in mud, or emerge from the threateningly from the tall grass covered in grease paint. They set elaborate traps using tree trunks and tripwires. They hide in the shadows and pull dudes into corners to slit their throats while whispering punchlines to the bad guys' corpse.

With extremely limited exception, 80's action heroes act like rogues, not fighters.

They're nor strolling through the battlefield, putting tanks and choppers in a headlock. Which is the kind of thing you might see a high level D&D fighter attempt with a reasonable expectation of success.

Nobody said the action movie heroes were high level fighters, you invented that as far as I can tell. Second, you're making broad assumptions about how everyone plays fighters. I pointed out how I think they're similar.

I'd say high level fighters are more akin to Captain America or the Black Panther. But they are also in a completely different genre and there's no way it could be a 1-to-1 comparison.

 

[Lanefan]

Let's ask it this way. Whose experiences are likely to be more similar to those of a D&D fighter?

Wolverine, Thor, and Captain America
OR..
Robin Hood, James Bond, and John McLain

Ideally, the latter three (with Robin Hood being a Ranger).

The former three are all supernaturally enhanced somehow - Wolverine and Cap by science, Thor by being a demigod - and sure, maybe your Fighter character gets lucky and stumbles on to such an enhancement at some point during its played career. Great for him! But that something like this will happen (or has already happened) to a PC should in no way be a default player-side expectation.

 

[Aldarc]

But it raises all kinds of new objections, you see. For me, the cure is worse than the disease.

This is how I feel about attempts to making the game more "realistic."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Apologies for the double post. But also this is backwards thinking.

It's less a matter of "Do John McLain's actions fall within an acceptable range of a D&D fighter:

It's more a matter of "Do a D&D fighters' exploits at all levels reliably map to John McLain's level of capability"

To me, the answer is a definitive "No".

True, because 5e fighters are badly designed.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's not how 5e works though. 5e rules are relatively symmetrical, and NPCs with character levels are perfectly possible. And I wouldn't like if a NPC taunted me and removed my agency to decide what my character does.

I will agree that I would not like it if an NPC ability with this ability forced me to attack them.

But I don't believe there is anything in the D&D rules to suggest that the existence of a character class ability means that NPCs can use that ability against PCs. Sure, an "NPCs with character levels are perfectly possible" but they don't (as far as I'm aware) exist as an official thing.

 

[mamba]

If you ignore the setting and technology, he hides in airvents and elevator shafts and kills one guy with a chain once.

Is that the goal we're striving for for our D&D martials.

that is nonsense, make him use a bow or a sword, ignoring the technology is not the same as everything he used technology (guns) for disappearing

 

[Vaalingrade]

The NPCs ingame have a free will. At the table they have the illusion of free will (because yes, they are controlled by the DM).

They're characters.

In a game.

Who exist only to serve the experience of the players.

They never had free will. They aren't people. They're tools to tell a story. A DM shouldn't get bent out of shape by a game element let the players made some decisions for those tools because they also aren't the DM's characters.

And it shouldn't matter how the players gets a hand on those tools. In fact, it's worse to set it up so only a chosen few special players get to use those tools. 'It's magic' shouldn't be a plot coupon that let's you experience the game in just a flat out better way than other players who made the mistake of wanting to play the dashing, powerful hero that certain people want to disallow.

Declaring 'immersion' only when it disenfranchises certain players is not cool.