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

[Ratskinner]

I just want to point out that I'm seeing an awful lot of 'othering' from a certain camp in this thread towards gamers that like a narrative thrust in their D&D. I think that it's wrong to assume or claim that it is a necessarily small number of gamers, particularly as most of these arguments are based on anecdotal evidence, which I don't think is very helpful in trying to present that particular case.

It would be just as easy (and pointless) for me to say that I think the simulationist crowd is small and insignificant because I've never or rarely seen people play that way (which is in my case true), but I know that my experience is far from universal. I'm not even going to pretend it is.

So, that said, posts containing things like, 'most gamers,' 'many of us,' and, 'the majority of,' are, to my eyes, basically unhelpful at best and blatantly misleading at worst, unless you happen to have any hard stats to back them up (and even then, their origin should rightfully be questioned).

Just my opinion, of course. Argue however you wish, but those kinds of comments make it hard to take seriously any argument based on them.

ehh...I see plenty of othering flying in all sorts of directions over these issues. People generally don't have as much perspective as they think they do.

Having said that, I do suspect that strongly or primarily Narrative gamers are probably a less-common form (I confess to being one.) However, I suspect that Narrative is very common as the secondary agenda for most gamers. I also think that D&D (especially back in the day) makes for a poor vehicle for this kind of play. Ergo, I suspect that however low that fraction of Nar-first gamers, it appears even smaller within the D&D community because so many have moved on to greener narrative pastures as they have become available. All supposition, of course.

...also "many" is not really a hard standard to meet. Its tantamount to saying "there exist more than two". You can say that about almost anything gaming-related. On the other hand, its a much weaker claim of probative value. "Most" and "majority" are much harder than "many". The real problem here is (as you mention) that bringing up any of them immediately puts the discussion into hearsay territory because none of us has any good data to actually cite.

 

[Nagol]

ehh...I see plenty of othering flying in all sorts of directions over these issues. People generally don't have as much perspective as they think they do.

Having said that, I do suspect that strongly or primarily Narrative gamers are probably a less-common form (I confess to being one.) However, I suspect that Narrative is very common as the secondary agenda for most gamers. I also think that D&D (especially back in the day) makes for a poor vehicle for this kind of play. Ergo, I suspect that however low that fraction of Nar-first gamers, it appears even smaller within the D&D community because so many have moved on to greener narrative pastures as they have become available. All supposition, of course.

...also "many" is not really a hard standard to meet. Its tantamount to saying "there exist more than two". You can say that about almost anything gaming-related. On the other hand, its a much weaker claim of probative value. "Most" and "majority" are much harder than "many". The real problem here is (as you mention) that bringing up any of them immediately puts the discussion into hearsay territory because none of us has any good data to actually cite.

I think that one of the reasons White Wolf took off initally. It has a more Nar "vibe" (and really only worked as the fluff suggested it would if the table took strong Nar control).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I replied to this because you said, and I quote, "As soon as we start talking about the "believability" of martial abilities and what that should be "allowed" to represent, it becomes a "Fighters Can't Have Nice Things" argument. There's really no way around it." Now that's an extreme position. People can't talk about what they find believable when it comes to martial abilities or they want fighters to suck. No, man, not buying it. I get that some people want that, but I just can't agree with your statement here.

No, the extreme position is in saying what should or should not be even allowed in the game as far as representation of archetypes. There is a very, very vocal element that does, in fact, make the argument that "Muggles Can't Have Nice Things" - to which some may add, "In My Game."

To those that make that clarification, fine, I can accept that. There are things I don't want in my game either - god wizards, as an example - and I think that's perfectly valid.

It comes when people start making the demand that the things I like shouldn't even be in the game at all, that I begin to have a problem. The issue comes up. A lot. So if my reaction to that vocal bunch is "extreme" then so be it.

I am perfectly capable of discussing my preferences with others, and hearing about their preferences, but the minute I hear that they don't think my POV should even be represented at all (or what sounds like such), that's when I get annoyed. And to clarify, I don't hold those who insist on cordoning off those options in some supplement book in much higher esteem, and will vigorously disagree with that opinion until we see how far the pandering goes on WotC's part.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And just because I may not want it, it doesn't mean someone else won't grab it (I don't have veto power on their character creation options unless I'm DMing). And, in most online builds I see of Fighters, they have Come And Get It. It's not like it's not widespread.

In short people aren't OK with other people having it if they want it. They don't like it and they don't want anyone else at the table to want it either.

The thing I mentioned is that while yes, you can avoid it, it being in the core PHB/MM/DMG has some things that'll rub people the wrong way. Now, there's a lot of mechanics like that (and I mentioned that in my post, too), but some seem more grating than others (Come And Get It gets a lot more flak than the 3e Knight's taunt, for example -which, for the record, I also disliked).

And this is, to me, absurd. A couple of steps vs 30 second long mind control.

But, while people don't like it and voice it, there's reasons beyond "I don't like it, and therefore nobody else should use it either."

They are just by your own words worried someone at the table might take it.

If you have a problem with the power (which it seems like a lot of people do), and you've got a Fighter in the group (which I think a lot of people do), and that player takes Come And Get It (which I think probably happens, if they hit 7th level [I think]), then I see why this objection comes up.

Because they have a problem with how other people at the table play and build their characters. You are demonstrating my point that it's a case of they don't like it so no one should have it.

But, again, most posters in this thread right now are saying "I don't like it" or "I don't want it or powers/abilities like it assumed" or the like. But, I think most posters who engage in these long debates are reasonable enough that they'd be okay with it being an option.

Come And Get It is an option. Nothing more, nothing less. If they were OK with it being an option they would not be objecting to it the way it is. An option. There wouldn't be literally years of threads of people objecting to this one power.

I therefore can not square your claim that people would be OK with it being an option with the fact that it is an option and that people are obviously not OK with it.

 

[Hussar]

That doesn't follow at all. What percentage of D&D games are run using published adventures? How would we really know?

Maybe, maybe you could make those generalizations about a subset of the population that plays published adventures or organized games. However, I'd argue that the "average" D&D player never goes to conventions or even a gaming store and runs a game at home with friends that is mostly homebrewed. Given the state of the hobby and the plenthora of non-supported systems, the average gamer probably doesn't buy products regularly. Since such a group is essentially "off the grid", how would we ever know what percentage of people that is, let alone what the properties of their games are?

The only thing I know for sure is that when I go online and read about D&D, I read about people who run games that are completely different from each other (and from mine). So I'm very skeptical of this claim.

Moreover, I sincerely hope that most D&D campaigns do not share that many similarities.

Well, that is what market research is for. WOTC has conducted a number of polls and other marketing to discover exactly that. Because knowing that is absolutely crucial for keeping the business afloat.

I'd also point out that Pathfinder is predicated on the idea that most campaigns are pretty similar given their dependence on Adventure Paths for income. So, I don't think the idea is too far out there.

Heck, go into the Story Hour forums and read the actual play reports. The games aren't really all that mechanically different, depending on system of course. One AD&D campaign will look a lot like many others. Even if one is set on Barsoom and another is pure Gygaxian dungeon crawls.

Or, as another example, look at the campaign building advice in any of the four DMG's - from AD&D to 4e. They aren't all that different. Bit of a different focus maybe, but, at the end of the day, it's still pretty recognizable from one edition to the next.

And, that ignores how many people play in pre-published settings like Forgotten Realms or Eberron. Both pretty popular settings. And many of the other TSR or WOTC settings have their fanbases. Those groups are playing games that are probably pretty recognizable to each other.

So, while it might seem that there are radically different campaigns out there, once you get past the minutia, most campaigns aren't vastly different from each other.

 

[Nagol]

In short people aren't OK with other people having it if they want it. They don't like it and they don't want anyone else at the table to want it either.



And this is, to me, absurd. A couple of steps vs 30 second long mind control.



They are just by your own words worried someone at the table might take it.



Because they have a problem with how other people at the table play and build their characters. You are demonstrating my point that it's a case of they don't like it so no one should have it.



Come And Get It is an option. Nothing more, nothing less. If they were OK with it being an option they would not be objecting to it the way it is. An option. There wouldn't be literally years of threads of people objecting to this one power.

I therefore can not square your claim that people would be OK with it being an option with the fact that it is an option and that people are obviously not OK with it.

The thing is... D&D 4e is also an option in a universe of games. Value judgements of how to spend my time are necessary since it isn't infinite. If a product has options in it that I find disruptive then its use drops in priority.

Others can play whatever they like.

 

[Guest 85555]

Oh, hey, I have no major beef with something like, say, HP and healing surges being a major sticking point. I might disagree with the reasoning, but, at least this is something that's actually going to come up in the game. You can't really play 4e without healing surges. ((I'm sure someone out there is going to tell me I'm wrong, but, by and large, healing surges are certainly an assumed part of the game)).

Or, if AEDU structures break your immersion, I can at least see the argument. Again, it's going to come up every single session and if it bothers you, it's REALLY going to bother you. Again, fair enough.

But, the whole powers thing boils down to THREE POWERS. That's it. Out of the hundreds of powers in the books, three are problematic. It would be no different from me constantly complaining about 3e and how 3e is a bad game and poorly designed, because I cherry picked three feats out of the PHB that are bad. Or three specific spells. And then harp about it every single thread for FOUR YEARS.

Do you not see how this might get a bit frustrating after a while?

Look, criticise 4e for stuff that actually matters. But, since 4e has been released, critics have been pulling single threads way out of context and using them for banners to bash everyone over the head as to why 4e is bad. It's no different than all the crap about "skip the gate guards" which ignored the several PAGES of great DMing advice and laser beam focused on one sentence tacked on at the end.

It's just so frustrating to have to keep screwing around with this minutia and ignoring any of the things that might actually be real issues with the system.

Well to be clear, i am not saying I dislike 4E because of come and get it. It isn't my favorite mechanic, and it is one of the complaints I have about fourth edition, but my reason for not liking the game is one the whole it breaks my immersion (largely because of daily and encounter martial powers, and things like healing surges).

 

[Hussar]

And, in most online builds I see of Fighters, they have Come And Get It. It's not like it's not widespread.

Could you give examples please? I don't pay much attention to builds to be honest, and, to be honest, I'm not really willing to take anyone's word right now about "most" of anything. Just how many builds have you seen and what percentage are using CaGI?

 

[Ratskinner]

And there's no reason to stop defending 4e. It's already kaput from a publishing standpoint, so there's no need to defend it in a desire to support extending its commercial base. What we need to do is defend the concepts that were embodied within 4e, so that whatever form D&D AfterNEXT takes, it will have a reason to move back in 4e's direction. If NEXT fails, the first thought in everyone's mind should be that it wasn't 4e enough to support 4e's large, loyal fanbase.

Sounds like you want to echo the behavior of 3.PF fans as a successful strategy? Or am I misreading you?

I can't speak for anyone else, but if Next fails "it wasn't 4e enough" is unlikely to be high on my list of reasons.* It might be true to some extent or another, but there is already plenty of strong competition for proximate cause of 5e's demise and it isn't even out yet! or should that be ?

Of course, maybe I'm just a sourpuss. I don't have high hopes for the continued commercial production of this game from a company like Hasbro. I wouldn't be surprised if, in 7-10 years, D&D is nothing but boxed euro-style games.

*loyalists of every stripe so far seem to see in Next whatever they despised most in their hated edition. It could just as likely fail to re-attract the 3.PF audience. Heck, it could fail for both!

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

*loyalists of every stripe so far seem to see in Next whatever they despised most in their hated edition. It could just as likely fail to re-attract the 3.PF audience. Heck, it could fail for both!

That's the scenario that must be keeping Mearls up at night.