D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Neonchameleon]

I don't, which was my point. I know that Gygax's writings describe hit points that way. Gygax made a mistake. One which has hindered the progress of the game for the duration of its existence.

OK.

To recap. You were arguing that if you wanted a system to represent luck and magical protection you should put one in. Now you are arguing that the system that does explicitely and unequivocally represent luck and magical protection and makes a terrible representation of damage should be changed to one that represents damage.

There are ways to represent physical damage in an RPG. Hit points aren't one of them because they have no serious consequence. Until then they fit much better with the system Gygax wrote them as than what you want to change them to.

Why leaving hit points (in the mishmash of toughness and luck and skill conception) behind is such a big deal when so many other things have been changed I don't understand.

Because hit points as is make no sense as physical damage. There's no penalty for taking damage other than that you can take less damage in the future. Someone on 1hp is every bit as capable as someone on full hp.

If you think D&D should be changed to have a wound/vitality system, and active penalties for blood loss, be my guest. Especially if you then add in instant death from a critical hit to the heart. But until that happens, hit points are a plot protection system not a wound and vitality system.

It regresses to an earlier stage of development in this and other ways by developing an idea that really doesn't warrant development.

D&D never left. It never changed mechanically what hit points do. And newer isn't always better.

It would be like bringing back and further developing the weapon vs armor charts,

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] likes Rolemaster

Balanced mechanical effectiveness at what?

Adventuring. Or whatever the game is about.

They probably approach balance (which is generally on the GM side of things) in ways that are not my preferred approach.

It has roles if you use the literal common-language definition of the word. All classes are roles in that sense, and they can be categorized somewhat as well in the way that 2e did. But 4e roles, which are specifically based on a reductionistic view of combat actions, are not there. 2e wizards were mages, not controllers, and those terms are not synonymous.

No they aren't. Because controller contains much more than just wizards and not all spellcasters are controllers. Spellcasters who approach the world a specific way are controllers.

As you point out, the mage category could include all wizard specialties, some of which are not focused on direct combat, and others of which can focus on virtually any type of combat action.

Being hyperflexible with preparation was the role. It's slightly different from the 4e role, but was there. And as I mentioned, the monk was designed to step into the thief role almost perfectly in 1e.

Similarly, 2e rogues were not strikers (though some could be), priests were not leaders, and fighters were not defenders. Those are the roles that 4e postulates.

*sigh*

2e rogues were not strikers. 2e rogues were incompetent. 3e rogues were strikers. Not all 4e priests are leaders - or even clerics. This is part of what power sources are about - if you are a priest and a leader you are probably a cleric.

Priests and clerics are not synonymous. Clerics are a specific type of priest who have been given a specific type of divine power for a specific purpose. Paladins are another type of priest.

Versions of D&D prior to 4e also had warlords, leaders, powers, minions, and rituals, by the common language definition of those words, but 4e created new concepts and assigned those words to them, thus when used in an appropriate technical context, they all refer to things that exist only in 4e.

Translation: 4e has technical vocabulary. So does every other game.

I know no one anywhere who has ever played 4e or would consider it a viable rpg, let alone a balanced one.

This, to me, is absolutely telling. You therefore have never played 4e, have never even tried to play 4e or understand how it works, and still feel you can pontificate on a game you do not understand the appeal or mechanisms of and have neither played nor knowingly met anyone who has.

You also live in an insular enough roleplaying community that you do not know anyone who has tried to play one of the world's most popular roleplaying games. And either none of you have the native curiosity to even try to figure out why other people prefer different things to you, or the people that do don't want you around when they do.

Perhaps it may be that neither of us knows a statistically meaningful portion of the rpg community.

Oh, possibly. But I know, have played with, and in many cases count as friends people who have been playing D&D since the 1970s, and people who have been playing D&D since 2012, roleplayers who wouldn't touch D&D with a 10 foot bargepole, and roleplayers who play only D&D. People whose favourite system is GURPS, people whose favourite system is FATE, people whose favourite system is Feng Shui, and people whose favourite system is Fiasco. If I look round the extended network, I don't think there's any game someone won't have tried their hand at this side of FATAL (and I wouldn't trust at least two of them not to have had a go on a bet).

This might not be a representative sample of gamers - but it means that I've a pretty good idea of the variety out there. And that's one good reason to reject the interpretation of hit points as damage - which you say was a step forward. Hits as damage was being done far better by GURPS in the mid 1980s (which also had such advances as a unified core mechanic - while the 3e class system is very reminiscent of WFRP 1e, again from the mid 80s).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've had much success playing a Lawful Good tophat who gives away mortgaged properties to those who need them.

You've found a way to make Monopoly take longer? What a genius piece of evil - a plan elegant in its simplicity.

 

[TwoSix]

You've found a way to make Monopoly take longer? What a genius piece of evil - a plan elegant in its simplicity.

We're turning it into a campaign, of course. Atlantic City is only the heroic tier.

 

[D'karr]

I've had much success playing a Lawful Good tophat who gives away mortgaged properties to those who need them.

I've been playing a CN dog. I poop on everyone's front lawn. It brings tears of joy to my eyes when I hear them yell - Get off my lawn!!!

 

[Dannager]

I know no one anywhere who has ever played 4e or would consider it a viable rpg,

It doesn't strike you that your view of 4e may - just maybe - be a touch inaccurate based on the fact that you know literally no one who has actually played it?

 

[Ahnehnois]

To recap. You were arguing that if you wanted a system to represent luck and magical protection you should put one in. Now you are arguing that the system that does explicitely and unequivocally represent luck and magical protection and makes a terrible representation of damage should be changed to one that represents damage.

Well, replaced with one that does.

There are ways to represent physical damage in an RPG. Hit points aren't one of them because they have no serious consequence. Until then they fit much better with the system Gygax wrote them as than what you want to change them to.
Because hit points as is make no sense as physical damage. There's no penalty for taking damage other than that you can take less damage in the future. Someone on 1hp is every bit as capable as someone on full hp.

Exactly. Leave the whole concept behind. Have one mechanic for your physical state, and another one for metagame considerations, and have neither of them look anything like hit points. That would be innovative. (Healing surges not so much).

If you think D&D should be changed to have a wound/vitality system, and active penalties for blood loss, be my guest. Especially if you then add in instant death from a critical hit to the heart. But until that happens, hit points are a plot protection system not a wound and vitality system.

It's already there (in UA and in a PF supplement). But yes, I do think that that (or another mechanic that is more well-defined that hp) should be the standard, not an option.

Adventuring. Or whatever the game is about.

Well that clears things up. Nothing vague or open-ended about that.

Translation: 4e has technical vocabulary. So does every other game.

Yes. Now that that's settled...

This, to me, is absolutely telling. You therefore have never played 4e, have never even tried to play 4e or understand how it works, and still feel you can pontificate on a game you do not understand the appeal or mechanisms of and have neither played nor knowingly met anyone who has.

Because D&D is sold in book form, and I read it. You don't have to play the game to make statements about it any more than you have to make movies in order to review them. I don't make any statements that I can't support; if I had such experience you'd see it in my posts, since I don't, you don't.

You also live in an insular enough roleplaying community that you do not know anyone who has tried to play one of the world's most popular roleplaying games. And either none of you have the native curiosity to even try to figure out why other people prefer different things to you, or the people that do don't want you around when they do.

Sure. You live in a community that hasn't been able to figure out the appeal of the most popular roleplaying game, according to your post. Whereas I have one that is willing to work with it or find another game that they like.

Hits as damage was being done far better by GURPS in the mid 1980s (which also had such advances as a unified core mechanic - while the 3e class system is very reminiscent of WFRP 1e, again from the mid 80s).

Indeed. So why hasn't D&D learned the appropriate lessons from those games and moved forward?

 

[Ahnehnois]

It doesn't strike you that your view of 4e may - just maybe - be a touch inaccurate based on the fact that you know literally no one who has actually played it?

No.

I am perfectly confident in my ability to make informed judgments about things that I do not have first-hand experience with. As a human, I have the capacity to learn and reason. Most of my knowledge is not firsthand, with regards to D&D or anything else. Nor, I suspect, us anyone else's.

And perhaps more to the point, overreliance on first-hand knowledge is one of the most basic of fallacies. I don't doubt that some individuals have enjoyed playing 4e, but I do doubt that the design of the game is responsible for that result, in most cases.

 

[Obryn]

I am perfectly confident in my ability to make informed judgments about things that I do not have first-hand experience with. As a human, I have the capacity to learn and reason. Most of my knowledge is not firsthand, with regards to D&D or anything else. Nor, I suspect, us anyone else's.

And perhaps more to the point, overreliance on first-hand knowledge is one of the most basic of fallacies. I don't doubt that some individuals have enjoyed playing 3e, but I do doubt that the design of the game is responsible for that result, in most cases.

Or....

I am perfectly confident in my ability to make informed judgments about things that I do not have first-hand experience with. As a human, I have the capacity to learn and reason. Most of my knowledge is not firsthand, with regards to D&D or anything else. Nor, I suspect, us anyone else's.

And perhaps more to the point, overreliance on first-hand knowledge is one of the most basic of fallacies. I don't doubt that some individuals have enjoyed playing AD&D, but I do doubt that the design of the game is responsible for that result, in most cases.

Or...

I am perfectly confident in my ability to make informed judgments about things that I do not have first-hand experience with. As a human, I have the capacity to learn and reason. Most of my knowledge is not firsthand, with regards to D&D or anything else. Nor, I suspect, us anyone else's.

And perhaps more to the point, overreliance on first-hand knowledge is one of the most basic of fallacies. I don't doubt that some individuals have enjoyed playing Savage Worlds, but I do doubt that the design of the game is responsible for that result, in most cases.

.... Is it sinking in how ridiculous this statement is, yet?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Is it sinking in how ridiculous this statement is, yet?

No. Since those other games are different.

And your example is also likely true in all cases, since enjoyment of the game is not solely a function of the rules.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because D&D is sold in book form, and I read it. You don't have to play the game to make statements about it any more than you have to make movies in order to review them. I don't make any statements that I can't support; if I had such experience you'd see it in my posts, since I don't, you don't.

No. You don't have to make movies to review them. But you need to either watch them or have a damn good reason not to. (I feel quite happy to not watch Saw or anything by Roman Polanski without actually seeing them).

Sure. You live in a community that hasn't been able to figure out the appeal of the most popular roleplaying game, according to your post.

There are plenty of D&D fans around. Including both 3e and Pathfinder fans. I didn't think anyone would raise that strawman.

Indeed. So why hasn't D&D learned the appropriate lessons from those games and moved forward?

Honestly, because every time someone tries a major change in D&D (as happened in 4e) people object. The design spec of 3e involved making it look superficially simmilar to AD&D on most counts (although a lot had fundamentally changed). By the standards of modern RPGs, 4e is little different from 3e. The same thing happens when Call of Cthulu or other old games change - see the kerfuffle about D20 CoC.