D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[The Soloist]

TSR's Gammaworld 4e (1992) introduced ascending armor and it was well received. If TSR had published the 3e of AD&D in 2000, it's not unreasonable to think they would have used ascending armor.

 

[Faolyn]

Which is the issue.

It's not that descending AC is bad

It's that if you do descending AC, you can't use modifiers because they'd have to be negative but beneficial. And D&D fans like modifiers.

Or you have positive, beneficial modifiers that add to the number you're rolling under. AC is 15, and a +3 bonus to hit would make the AC 18, now roll under that. Then you just have to get everyone to remember to say that out loud each turn, which, good luck with that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've had GMs who will say the number. I've had GMs who won't. I've had GMs who do both.


There was a whole tangent on another thread exactly about this, whether or not a GM should have consistent numbers for this sort of thing. In this case, if the GM says "this is a rain slick wall" on one occasion and "this is a very smooth, rain slick wall," then different modifiers are fully acceptable. If the GM doesn't describe it that way (or at least has that in their notes, but forgot to mention it) but has different penalties, it can be acceptable to call shenanigans, or at least be miffed due to lack of consistency.

But yes, I agree that those two things would probably have different modifiers.

But anyway, much of the rest of this doesn't really have much to do with why some people don't like roll-under systems; it's all about game design.


OK, I don't quite think you get it here. I'm going to assume worst-case scenario here: you had your heart set on playing a cleric who could dish out large amounts of melee damage, but due to the way your game's chargen worked, you were stuck with a Strength of 9, and had to readjust, and are cool with the readjustment.

Here's the thing: not everyone thinks like you. For a lot of people, getting stuck with a character they don't want is terrible. Especially if they made up a background ahead of time, which a lot of gamers do. Not everyone is into characters whose story emerges through play.

And that's why many people don't like roll-under systems, particularly when combined with games that are actively designed to produce low numbers to roll under.

Those two types of players would probably be happier playing different games, perhaps under different GMs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

TSR's Gammaworld 4e (1992) introduced ascending armor and it was well received. If TSR had published the 3e of AD&D in 2000, it's not unreasonable to think they would have used ascending armor.

My favorite version of Gamma World.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

My point isn't that people shouldn't liek what they like, but rather they should play the game they like rather than constantly complaining that the current game isn't the old game. Just play what you like.

This thread was inspired by a poster literally saying that they would give the current game a try if only it used the old art. Literally used the old art.

That is what is exhausting. Just play 2E or whatever.

I don't know the source argument, but it sounds like he's not critiquing game mechanics or writing, but art direction, suggesting earlier takes in art direction were better for some reason (not necessarily just because nostalgia). Art is inherently aesthetic and often subjective, so its fair to admit when a style doesn't do it for you. I have bought games before where I never could get anyone to play them because the art style dissuaded my players from considering it. That said....I would not lump 5E (either edition) in that boat. The art style is pretty decent overall, even if everyone in the 2024 PHB does look like they are tripping on something.

EDIT: LOL just realized this was not a new post, but a 101 page thread post.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

WAR is clearly and obviously the best D&D artist and anyone who disagrees is wrong!

(His cover artwork is always fantastic imo)

 

[Umbran]

And people wonder why gaming discussions with conservative gamers is so infuriating?

Yeah, but not for the reason you may be implying, because, in the example you give, you're kind of like a carpenter trying to remove a screw with a claw hammer, and getting mad at the wood when it doesn't go well.

In the sense of the OP, "conservative" positions (and many others - but this thread is about "conservative" positions) are primarily matters of taste and feelings. And you're confronting them with facts and logic as if that's a good approach for addressing emotional positions.

I am not sure that the resulting frustration is their fault. Folks like things. They should be allowed to like things. There's not a lot of value in logically assailing them with reasons why the things they like are badwrongfun.

 

[Lanefan]

Right, that's why I said that descending AC was still a little bad. But it becomes much worse when you also have modifiers where sometimes a minus means it gets better (lower) and sometimes a plus does.

And yet IM(very long)E people have little to no trouble figuring it out and working with it. Part of that might be that much of the arithmetic is done by the DM; all the player really has to know regarding AC is lower is better and a bonus makes it lower.

 

[Lanefan]

I've had GMs who will say the number. I've had GMs who won't. I've had GMs who do both.


There was a whole tangent on another thread exactly about this, whether or not a GM should have consistent numbers for this sort of thing. In this case, if the GM says "this is a rain slick wall" on one occasion and "this is a very smooth, rain slick wall," then different modifiers are fully acceptable. If the GM doesn't describe it that way (or at least has that in their notes, but forgot to mention it) but has different penalties, it can be acceptable to call shenanigans, or at least be miffed due to lack of consistency.

But yes, I agree that those two things would probably have different modifiers.

Odds are very high - for things like this that come up relatively infrequently - a player won't remember the penalty from last time, this time. Depending how many beer I've had, I might not remember it either and make up something on the fly.

Things that come up much more often - e.g. the -4 to-hit penalty if fighting blinded or in total darkness - everyone knows and either remembers going in or remembers after the first reminder.

OK, I don't quite think you get it here. I'm going to assume worst-case scenario here: you had your heart set on playing a cleric who could dish out large amounts of melee damage, but due to the way your game's chargen worked, you were stuck with a Strength of 9, and had to readjust, and are cool with the readjustment.

Here's the thing: not everyone thinks like you. For a lot of people, getting stuck with a character they don't want is terrible. Especially if they made up a background ahead of time, which a lot of gamers do.

Making up a background etc. ahead of time and getting one's heart set on it is in my view a cardinal sin. Not my problem if people do it and then regret what follows when the dice don't co-operate.

For this particular character I got a wide range of rolls - two very low, three moderate, and one quite high. Human, so no intrinsic modifiers or ASIs. We get to assign the rolls, so the high (18) went into Wis, the moderate went into Int, Con, and Cha, and the low ones went into Str (9) and Dex (8, since improved to 9 by a wild magic effect). As I was basing this character on a real person I knew*, it was having to knacker the Dex that hurt as the real person was quite dextrous. Otherwise it was close enough to be close enough, until I got into melee and realized this guy hit like a feather (I'd envisioned him at least holding his own); and so I had to change tack on the fly and go all defense, leaving the hitting-for-damage to other people.

* - a decision loosely made ahead of time provided the dice gave me anything to work with, and locked in once I saw what I had. The deciding factor was when I rolled his height I got a mere 5 ft 3 in; as the person I wanted to base him on was also quite short, that nailed it.

Not everyone is into characters whose story emerges through play.

The issue isn't the presence of a great long backstory, it's the presence of it before even rolling the character up. Once the character's rolled up - and note that the roll-up process includes choosing or rolling some background elements such as age, past professions, some life skills, etc. - then go to town with its pre-adventuring backstory if you like; I've even got some charts and tables that can help with that if you want (e.g. if you want to random-roll for how many siblings you have if any, what your parents do (or did, if now deceased), and so forth).

 

[Faolyn]

Making up a background etc. ahead of time and getting one's heart set on it is in my view a cardinal sin. Not my problem if people do it and then regret what follows when the dice don't co-operate.

Yeah, see, with most of the people I've gamed with, creating the background ahead of time is the only way to make your character, and it's coming into the game without even the most basic idea of what you want that's the cardinal sin.

And it's probably why so many people like point-buy instead of random chargen. They can be guaranteed to have the stats they want, even if none of them are especially high or low.