D&D 5E (2014) "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[pemerton]

Have one mechanic for your physical state, and another one for metagame considerations

This is some people's preference. But plenty of games don't have such a distinction: all versions of D&D, Tunnels & Trolls, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, HeroWars/Quest, plus innumerable others. These are all good RPGs that are widely played and enjoyed.

Even a game like Burning Wheel, which is closer to the sort of distinction you are calling for, relies on metagame-heavy adjudication of failed skill checks to keep pushing the game forward.

That would be innovative.

The innovation you're talking about already exists. HARP, for instance, has non-hit-point style damage rules (it's a crit system; so injury debuffs, and concussion hit loss is just a measure of bruising and blood loss that operates in parallel to the wound mechanics).

Burning Wheel is another non-hit based system, though its wound (debuff) mechanics are't as intricate as HARP's.

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

That's true as far as it goes. But I think your preference for process-simulation, world-exploration RPGing makes it hard for you to understand what others are doing with RPGs that you're not interested in. You seem to infer from the fact that they don't support your preferred approach to the fact that they're no good as RPGs.

there hasn't been a lot of explanation

I find this suggestion - that non-proccess sim, non-world exploration RPGers - haven't explained their playstyle pretty bizarre. There are two current active threads: "Pemertonian scene framing" and "4e, the great game that everyone hated". Plus dozens if not hundreds of others over the past several years, many of which I've scene you participate in.

regardless of whether game X or game Y is under discussion, the rules are not the primary determinant of whether each individual player of the game enjoyed it.

I don't know how you can know this is true as a general rule. Also, from the fact that some people's enjoyment might be semi-independent of the game system, it doesn't follow that the game system isn't relevant to producing that enjoyment.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My response to Ahnehnois is a variant on ZombieRoboNinja's: if players are using build resources to build a musician and a doctor, then it is the GM's job to set up the ingame situations to make both those PCs relevant.

The thing with that is, in D&D you don't have a "Combat" skill. There's no one number that determines how good you are at combat. And combat is multifactorial. It's not only about dealing damage (in different ways, at different distances, through different distances), it's also about buffing/debuffing, movement, healing, and any number of other things.

I (as has been argued elsewhere) don't believe that the basic D&D rules structure (attacks rolls, AC, damage, hit points, saving throws, etc.) offers enough ways for nonmagical characters to contribute in all those areas, despite its emphasis on combat. So magical characters end up looking too good by comparison.

Conversely, if the game rules presuppose a certain sort of situation (eg football, per ZombieRoboNinja's example) then it should be directing players to build PCs that are capable in that situation. Eg in the football game, building musicianship or air marshallship into your PC should be comparatively cheap in the PC build rules, because it's primarily going to be just a bit of background and colour.

Well, that I don't agree with. To me, character build resources are (in this case) an abstract measurement of how much time and energy a character has to spend in order to acquire the relevant skills. Thus, even if music is less important, it is still just as hard to learn. That's what my example about Heal and Perform ranks costing the same amount of skill points was about. Heal is generally more useful, but they're both skills. You can define the skills in such a way to emphasize a certain activity, say by splitting out combat-relevant skills and grouping noncombat skills.

 

[triqui]

They did a lot more to both categories. For Fighter-types, melee damage went up massively. In my 3.5e campaign, the main fighters were competing to do the most damage -- they were doing 200+ per round on "good" rounds. The damage increase was matched by hit point inflation -- especially at levels >9 but even low levels gained a substantial boost.

But the HP of creatures also inflated. So it was not an advantage.
I remember being able to kill a pit fiend in the charge with my half elf two weapon fighting myrmidon fighter at lvl 15 in AD&D2e. In 3e, I couldn't. I could, in a full round (not in the charge). Sure, in 3e I could do double the damage. But the Pit Fiend would have three times as much hp. Also, AC was caped at -10. That's about 30 AC in 3e. But there are dragons with 40+ AC, even with 50+ AC if they use spells. Itterative attacks did not have a penalty, so a character was able to hit reliably with all his attacks. My 2e fighter had a Thaco of -5 or so. I could hit every one in the game with a 5, with all my attacks, having the equivalent of pounce (as you could full round in a charge too, for free).

Everyone got a massive boost to making saving throws at low level -- the bonus erodes at higher levels compared to earlier editions, but the difference at low levels is massive. Wizard spells got capped or reduced damage compared to 1e and had to deal with the same hit point inflation the fighter damage was increased to handle. Further, spells that were restricted by hit point total like Power Word: Kill did not have their thresholds adjusted even though high level opponent hit points trebled or more. Compare ancient red dragon hit point totals and the hit point cap of the power words.

That's true, and he reason why Fireball got demoted as the king of spells. But in the other hand, the Saving Throws become dependant of the spell level and the intelligence of the caster.
Back in AD&D, save or die spells weren't reliable, specially at high levels. Because everybody saved with a 4+ or so. In 3e, wizards could target the weakest save (dominating the fighter, or desintegrating the wizard), and the save could be raised to high values, were nobody could reliably save (on his low save, at least).

It just changed which spells were seen as good. Instead of "fireball", wizards started to cast "Polymorph Other". Then they started to use even better spells, like battlefield control with no save (reverse gravity, wall of force). They also were able to become "batman" and "god wizard" because they got the biggest buff in the whole edition the ability to craft magic items. And Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat. They had now, not only a larger amount of spells memorized, but a huge bonus in spells available, just in their scroll case.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is some people's preference. But plenty of games don't have such a distinction: all versions of D&D, Tunnels & Trolls, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, HeroWars/Quest, plus innumerable others. These are all good RPGs that are widely played and enjoyed.

Indeed. But (inasmuch as I've seen), those rpgs don't have the identity crisis on this issue that D&D does. I (and not just I) am unsure with regards to any version of D&D to what extent the rules are strictly the physics of the game world, and to what extent they are metagame constructs. With, say, MHRP, it is clear to me that the rules are not strictly describing the game world, they're creating plot. Metagame rules aren't inherently a bad thing.

What I think causes problems is when it's not clear what a rule means. How much are hit points about physical characteristics, and how much are they skill, and how much are they metagame? I can't tell. Can you?

To me, hit points are an example of a rule that lacks transparency, because no one seems to be able to agree on what they mean.

The innovation you're talking about already exists.

Most innovations do already exist before they're widely adopted.

Certainly most anything in 4e that one might describe as "innovative" (and use as an excuse to criticize others for resisting change or holding back innovative) already existed somewhere. My point in this regard is how do you define sacred cows? It seems remarkable to accept changes aplenty while in the same breath (or post, as it were) quoting a deceased writer who hasn't written any of the last three editions (at least) now of D&D as being the definitive authority on the subject.

That's true as far as it goes. But I think your preference for process-simulation, world-exploration RPGing makes it hard for you to understand what others are doing with RPGs that you're not interested in. You seem to infer from the fact that they don't support your preferred approach to the fact that they're no good as RPGs.

I can't say that I'm real big on process-sim or world exploration; that seems an odd assertion. (Rules as physics of the game world isn't the same as process sim). That being said, I don't need to understand all possible perspectives in order to draw conclusions about a game that is labeled as being a new edition of one that I already play. If a game is marketed to me (and foisted on me by a few posters as [MENTION=6698787]timASW[/MENTION] describes), it has to fit my needs and work with my style in order for me to accept it and it has to read well in order for me to buy it. If I'm not convinced that it does that, it is not incumbent on me to adopt or even understand the mentality of its designers. I don't know whether or not 4e is good for something (nor is that relevant), I just know it doesn't meet the criteria that I personally have for it.

By the same token, for example, I don't need to watch all of JJ Abrams' movies in order to critique his Star Trek reboot, nor do I need to study and understand his style or philosophy of film-making. I already know what Star Trek is to me and I can judge a Star Trek movie on that basis. And someone else with a different perspective is welcome to (and will probably) render a very different judgment for very different reasons.

I don't know how you can know this is true as a general rule. Also, from the fact that some people's enjoyment might be semi-independent of the game system, it doesn't follow that the game system isn't relevant to producing that enjoyment.

I know because while D&D-style tabletop rpgs are a relatively recent innovation, roleplaying is one of the most fundamental forms of play. The ability to do it is a developmental marker. And people enjoy doing various forms of cooperative storytelling without rules, and have been doing so for far longer than we've been around. I feel comfortable with my reasoned conclusion that an individual roleplaying experience is not primarily defined by game rules (regardless of what the game is), because those rules themselves are an optional part of that experience.

I don't feel comfortable saying "Edition X fixed this issue for my game (or my game and my friends' games), therefore everyone has the same issue and Edition X will fix it for them", let alone "Edition X is balanced and this is objectively true, while all other games are unbalanced".

 

[pemerton]

combat is multifactorial. It's not only about dealing damage (in different ways, at different distances, through different distances), it's also about buffing/debuffing, movement, healing, and any number of other things.

I (as has been argued elsewhere) don't believe that the basic D&D rules structure (attacks rolls, AC, damage, hit points, saving throws, etc.) offers enough ways for nonmagical characters to contribute in all those areas, despite its emphasis on combat. So magical characters end up looking too good by comparison.

You have left at least one thing out of "the basic D&D rules structure" - namely, effects. And there is at least one edition of D&D which permits non-spellcasting PCs to debuff, affect movement (both allied and enmy), healing, etc - namely, 4e. In fact, if you look at what 4e players post about their enjoyment of the game, you'll often see these features of non-magical PCs referred to as significant ones.

 

[pemerton]

Indeed. But (inasmuch as I've seen), those rpgs don't have the identity crisis on this issue that D&D does.

The identity crisis is, as far as I can see, an issue of marketing. 4e the ruleset has no identity crisis that I'm aware of.

With, say, MHRP, it is clear to me that the rules are not strictly describing the game world, they're creating plot.

<snip>

How much are hit points about physical characteristics, and how much are they skill, and how much are they metagame? I can't tell. Can you?

It depends completely on the situation and its details - how it emerged, how it's being engaged both mechanically and within the fiction, etc.

Much like Marvel Heroic. Physical stress is clearly, in part, an indication of damage suffered. But it also has an obvious metagame element, in so far as the physcial damage required to KO The Thing is quite a bit more than that required to KO Daredevil - yet they both have the same physical stress tolerance within the game.

I can't say that I'm real big on process-sim or world exploration; that seems an odd assertion.

To me, character build resources are (in this case) an abstract measurement of how much time and energy a character has to spend in order to acquire the relevant skills.

Your characterisation of PC build resources as a model of the ingame difficulty of a human being mastering a particular skill is classic process-sim (Ron Edwards has a nice discussion of this sort of approach to PC build, with particular reference to Champions, in his essay on "The Right to Dream").

My comments on world exploration are based on your frequent remark - in this and other threads - that "balance" is to be understood in the relation between the PC and the gameworld. In a system like Marvel Heroic, or default 4e, or Maelstrom Storytelling, or Burning Wheel - in all of which the gameworld operates, mechanically, as an element in the framing of situations, the idea of balacing PCs against the world makes no sense at all. It is only coherent in relation to a game in which the gameworld is an independent element of play against which PCs can be measured - ie in which the gameworld is itself an independent fictional entity which the players (via their PCs) explore through play.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You have left at least one thing out of "the basic D&D rules structure" - namely, effects. And there is at least one edition of D&D which permits non-spellcasting PCs to debuff, affect movement (both allied and enmy), healing, etc - namely, 4e. In fact, if you look at what 4e players post about their enjoyment of the game, you'll often see these features of non-magical PCs referred to as significant ones.

It allows them to impose bonuses and penalties to attacks, restore hit points, and otherwise affect the structure that I was describing.

 

[Obryn]

Depeds on what aspect of it.

If you were for instance to read the parts about how vampires fight or flight reflex kicks up when they meet new vampires, with its mechanical effects on ensuing social interaction and say that that means that it would be very difficult to run exploration chronicles based on traveling America and uncovering ancient vampire secrets from native american vampires. Well then yes, your opinion would be perfectly valid, and correct.

Because yes, the straight up mechanics DO have that mechanical effect on that aspect of roleplaying that game.

If however you were to read the book and say that the vampires resistance to bullets and ability to use blood to heal wounds makes them nigh invincible...

well then no. You would be wrong. Other limitations built into many other places in the game mean that they arent actuallly that much tougher on average then a human soldier. They can be optimized to be pretty tough but not at all nigh invulnerable, even though some mechanics in the book make them seem tougher then they are when taken bit by hit.

So much like with 4e (and i played and ran that one too) what part you criticize just from reading the books is absolutely relevant to whether its a statement with merit or not. A very large chunk of that game is, by design, exactly how it appears in the books.

Cool. And here's the irony. Because you have a lot more experience in Vampire than I do ("good amounts" vs. "none at all, except playing 7 or 8 sessions of Mage 1e one time"), it's clear your opinion has more weight than mine on this question.

And if I said something like, "No, there are no rules for playing a Hopping Vampire in the game," you'd probably correct me if I was wrong, even if it was in a later supplement.

Much like with Go, my position is that vast parts of 4e emerge during gameplay and can't be intuited through just reading the rules. Like whether or not Fighters and Wizards place the same, and how healing surges work in play. Broad mathematical concepts, sure. And a few other bits. But not all of it, and it's almost a truism at this point that 4e players will tell you it plays better than it reads. And that's why I think it's fair to question Ahnehnois's knowledge.

-O

 

[Siberys]

I'm inclined to agree that the D&D classes should all be useful in combat. Just not equally useful in all situations.

They can't all, for example, turn the stone floor beneath the combatants into mud and then turn it into rock again, nor do anything remotely equivalent to that. So the question in my mind is how to make everyone feel useful. Not necessarily equal, but useful enough.

And, well... that's what 4e does! Everyone can contribute usefully in combat, but they all do different things - even within classes, characters can feel useful while still operating differently. Add on top of that, a defender isn't always going to be as useful as a striker, sometimes you'll want crowd control instead of pure damage, &c. IOW, not equally useful in all situations.

I mean, in a game where combat isn't such a central part, like CoC in your example, combat balance isn't paramount. But D&D has always had a /lot/ of combat, so it's important that it's balanced. Which, again, is not about making everyone operate the same. It's about making sure as many options as possible are actually good enough comparatively to see use. If they aren't, there's only an illusion of choice, because anybody taking the time to compare things mechanically will "choose" the best.

 

[Dannager]

Actually I've been spot on the money so far.

No.

Whats annoying as hell is when 4ers have double standards of behavior like this. Things like "how can you judge something you havent tried, people who have tried it say its great (even when most of them actually dont) "

You have some support for a claim like that, I'm sure?

juxtaposed with admitting in many other places people with those problems being discussed are absolutely NOT served simply by playing the base rules with a different understanding and have to actually go to extreme expense in money, time, and labor to fix them.

I don't think you know what a double-standard is.

4ers like to have their cake and eat it too rhetorically. And its very irritating. Even to someone who doesnt even like 3e that much either like myself.

You poor thing. It must be so tough for you, to have to deal with people who genuinely enjoy the game they choose to play, and who have the gall to defend it in the face of ignorant, half-baked criticism.