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

[Ahnehnois]

Wow, really? The non-existence of any problematic powers (as you defined problematic powers) drops a game in priority?

It would be the same as me refusing to play 3e because of Spiked Chains and Double Bladed Swords. It's literally that small of an element in the game.

Or the same as someone refusing to play 3e because of a couple of spells (i.e. the mentality this thread started from).

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Or the same as someone refusing to play 3e because of a couple of spells (i.e. the mentality this thread started from).

I don't think this is accurate. Those "couple of spells" can, and have IME, had a MUCH greater impact on how the game plays than his example of a couple pieces of equipment.

Though I will also point out that my own personal reasons for disliking 3.x go a lot deeper than quadratic wizards and linear warriors.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't think this is accurate. Those "couple of spells" can, and have IME, had a MUCH greater impact on how the game plays than his example of a couple pieces of equipment.

Or powers, as was the original issue?

Though I will also point out that my own personal reasons for disliking 3.x go a lot deeper than quadratic wizards and linear warriors.

Fair enough, for you.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think the problem may be that you've made a caricature out of the arguments.

Yeah, I'd go with caricature. But hey, it's going both ways, so it's only fair, right? Even if it's not productive?

I don't agree that is what I did at all. I didn't distort the arguments for both of those positions. I represented them in their most provocative light, intentionally, but I didn't distort them at all. I just wanted to distill the noise and get the most pure signal out of those two positions that I could.

The anti-fear effect vs Will causing a hardened warrior to run away.

The anti-goad/ruse effect vs Will causing (i) another warrior (or more) to engage the target or causing (ii) a ranged character (be it bowman or wizard) to engage the target. When I say "engage", I mean "move into melee and attempt to attack".

I thought both of those pretty well represented the most ardent of the two positions. There is no distortion there. They are two sides of the same coin so I'm just wondering how its possible to hold both positions simultaneously.

My personal take is that I find it considerably nonsensical for a hardened, veteran warrior who consistently faces certain death and moves forward in the face of it to randomly (i) run for his life in fear and (ii) expose his comrades to peril. Hardened warriors jump on grenades so their buddies don't die. They don't run the opposite direction when the chips are down. Might they suffer some kind of shaken effect? Perhaps. But that is about the extent of it.

My personal take is that I find it considerably nonsensical for a wizard or a bowman to engage a hardened warrior in battle regalia in melee on the strength of a challenge or a goad...they're not going to fight the battle on his terms, that doesn't make sense. However, might they move forward a few paces to fire a point-blank shot into his head, execution-style, to make sure ("How do you shoot the devil in the back...what if you miss?") that their enemy is good and dead? I can buy that.

And beyond that, I can absolutely, 100 % buy hardened warrior challenging hardened warrior to hand-to-hand combat and the siren-call of the ego getting the better of the opponent...there is literally a legion of these examples in the animal kingdom (human animals included).

I can buy that a lot more than I can buy a hardened warrior, who would jump on a grenade to save his buddies, running for his life in fear and exposing his comrades to peril. However, all of that being said...I'm of a mind that I want my fiction to be as diverse as possible. As such, I want all of the above possibilities to be available in the rendering of the conflict and I want PC build resources (to make you more willful or made of sterner stuff) to play a role in the outcome...and I want dice or other fortunes to play a role in the outcome...and I want the genre preferences at the table and the creativity of the group in question to have a go at skinning the outcomes to their liking. As such, we have the possibility of hardened warriors running for their lives, warriors being challenged and accepting, and bowman and wizards being tricked into taking a few steps forward for the chance at execution-like precision "just to be sure".

 

[Manbearcat]

I believe we've been told almost precisely this...maybe in a L&L? I can't seem to locate it.

I believe you're right. And not too long ago at that.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Or powers, as was the original issue?

I don't think that's accurate either. The "problem" spells in question have consequences much more far-reaching in the context of the game and a campaign than the handful of (for some) problematic powers in 4e.

I'm not disputing that at the table level, per group, these things may be equally disruptive to one's enjoyment of a given game, but as far as the individual impact on the game itself, no, I think those powers are roughly equivalent in value to a couple pieces of equipment and just as easily ignored for those who are so inclined.

This is, of course, independent of any other issues one might have with the game, which I cannot speak to.

Fair enough, for you.

What do you want? My own experience is all I can comment on. Though not universal, my experience is not unique, just like yours isn't.

 

[pemerton]

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

From my point of view, I want to be able to have conversations about RPGs, about GMing techniques, different approaches to resolution, etc, which don't involve having to deal with assertions and implications that those who play games with metagame elements don't care about story, or about verisimilitude, or indeed about anything but combat. Nor with assertions and implications that combat is at odds with roleplaying.

Whether or not people care to play Burning Wheel, or HeroWars/Quest, or whatever other narrativist-oriented game, those games are out there and are fairly well known. They show that these assertions and implications are false.

When I post in 3E/PF threads, or in classic D&D threads, I don't drop in random threadcrap about why I don't play 3E. I talk about what I know of the game, plus my own play experiences where relevant. I know that a lot of people don't play 4e - fine. But I don't need to keep hearing why again and again, in terms that very frequently involve the above-mentioned assertions or implications.

WW has been accused of turning off a lot of Nar gamers in the 90's by sucking them in with that vibe and then giving them a lousy system to support it. I sometimes suspect that to be true. I know I was profoundly disappointed with the Vampire game.

I played very little Vampire, but I played AD&D 2nd ed in the mid-90s with people who were also Vampire players. And the characterisation on The Forge of the approach of these games is pretty accurate to my experience - GM-force heavy metaplot masquerading as narrative profundity.

And [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION], see my post #570 above; or my recent reply on another thread to Li Shenron, who tried to capture the divide by talking about "some players who care about verisimilitude, and some who don't" - the latter obviously not being the real roleplayers!

People very often complain about The Forge being precious and pretentious, but it is hard to have a more dismissive and arrogant attitude than associating one's own preferred techniques and habits with RPGing as such - epsecially without even bothering to understand the techniques that others might be using.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

And @JamesonCourage , see my post #570 above; or my recent reply on another thread to Li Shenron, who tried to capture the divide by talking about "some players who care about verisimilitude, and some who don't" - the latter obviously not being the real roleplayers!

People very often complain about The Forge being precious and pretentious, but it is hard to have a more dismissive and arrogant attitude than associating one's own preferred techniques and habits with RPGing as such - epsecially without even bothering to understand the techniques that others might be using.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, and pretty much the reason I quit posting in the discussion forums.

Arguments based on One True Way fallacies and false characterization of the preferences of others.

 

[TwoSix]

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

If we get something as successful as Pathfinder, but aimed at 4e players? A pipe dream, but yes, please!

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 ?

Maybe not, but I'm still hoping that it's the conventional wisdom.

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.

I agree. I just want it to be embraced and supported, even if by a smaller third party. I'd take something on the level of the recent FATE Core or Numenera Kickstarter, certainly.

*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!

Right now, I think this is the most likely. I'm not WISHING for it, I just see it as almost unavoidable.

 

[Libramarian]

It's pretty narrative, but I'd say it's also recognizable as a kind of D&D. That was my point, not that it's the best model for Next. And I think it might be a good idea to steal some mechanics or design sense from that.

-O

I've never read Dungeon World but the whole idea of it turns me off. It feels very calculated and self-aware which is not what I'm looking for from an escapist fantasy nerd game. I don't think the designers actually like classic D&D; they're system/theory nerds who were tinkering with Apocalypse World and saw an opportunity to piggyback onto the OSR movement. I don't blame them for that, they probably made more money than Vincent Baker has in his entire career writing games. But for me it doesn't feel authentic enough to make me want to bust out the cheetos and mountain dew and do some serious gaming. I wouldn't mind playing Apocalypse World but I don't want anything to do with Dungeon World. I don't think of D&D as a genre, I think of it as a game.