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

[Obryn]

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.

I'd say you're completely wrong about the intent. It's written like a big ol' love letter to oldschool D&D - just with newschool mechanics. But that comes of not having looked at it, I suppose.

And if you ever feel like looking - they released the "red box" for free. So ...

It's possible to love oldschool D&D but wish it had different mechanics.

-O

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

To me, your "if you question believability, you hate Fighters" is just as extreme. Your mileage obviously varies.

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.

Well, that's pretty much how I see "if you question the believability of martial abilities, you hate Fighters." So that's why I think your view is fairly extreme and "do it my way or you're wrong" (a "One True Way" fallacy, as you just put 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.

Yeah, I get you advocating for your point of view. That makes sense to me. But I still think your take on things, as I've quoted and replied to twice now, are just as extreme.

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).

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.

I think most people that voice something against Come And Get It have more reasons than just that reason to dislike 4e. But, that's the point Ahnehnois is making, isn't it? Those spells are options (Neonchameleon doesn't have to pick them, but he always will, or he can't feel like he connects to his character), just as much as Come And Get It is. You can easily completely house rule either one out, or avoid using them with your character for any number of reasons (as I've told Neonchameleon before, one of my best friends is a soldier -deploying again this year- and his stories are of men that are anything but always using optimal tactics to keep themselves out of danger). As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

Right? Isn't this the case for any player that doesn't want their game disrupted?

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

Hey, I said I disliked the 3e Knight's taunt, too. So, I'm essentially on your side. But the exceptions it had certainly helped a portion of people, didn't it? (I purposefully didn't qualify "a portion of people" because I don't think either of us knows if it's a large portion or small portion, or just a vocal portion.)

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

At their own table, yes. Not in general. Again, it'll disrupt their table experience.

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.

No I'm not, man. I'm saying that they don't want others at the table to have it, since it disrupts their play. And yes, tables can resolve these issues, as they always have (HP, rage/day, etc.), but it's no surprise that people object to it. Nor is it particularly unreasonable to want particularly contentious powers/abilities to be more explicitly optional, in my opinion.

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.

I just went over the whys. Personally, I have the luxury of understanding how both side sees this. If you can't square it, well, man, I don't think I'm going to be able to clarify it for you. Maybe one day you'll at least see where these guys are coming from. As always, play what you like

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?

I've probably seen about 6-8 different Fighter builds, and probably 5-6 of them had Come And Get It. But no, feel free to investigate; I'm not finding links to 6-8 builds when you can find 6-8 that don't have it. Doesn't sound like a fun game to me, since we'd need to find all the builds on the internet for this to be exhaustive enough for it to be decisive. So, feel free to have a go at it. As always, play what you like

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.

I think you made a caricature of the arguments. You "distilled" them to such a point that they were oversimplified (only applying for warriors being afraid, for starters), and, to me, they seemed distorted enough that I don't think they're helping the conversation at all (and, even disregarding my reply, I don't see people replying to your post in any productive light). So, I'm going to stick with what I said, and agree to disagree. As always, play what you like

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.

I don't know if you missed it, but I said that these dismissive posts happen. But, I said that they usually don't happen by posters who engage in these long debates, and that you seem to extrapolate their intentions or declarations to everyone else that share their dislikes of the same mechanics. And I think that's fairly accurate. As always, play what you like

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

To me, your "if you question believability, you hate Fighters" is just as extreme. Your mileage obviously varies.

That's not what I said, at all. Your paraphrase fails to capture my point. You just "made a caricature of my argument."

Well, that's pretty much how I see "if you question the believability of martial abilities, you hate Fighters." So that's why I think your view is fairly extreme and "do it my way or you're wrong" (a "One True Way" fallacy, as you just put it).

Again, this is at least in part to misunderstanding or deliberate misreading of what I wrote. What I said doesn't mean that people can't question believability. What it means is that when they start advocating that these options shouldn't exist, they're in effect, stating some variation on Muggles Can't Have Nice Things. And that happened. In this thread.

Yeah, I get you advocating for your point of view. That makes sense to me. But I still think your take on things, as I've quoted and replied to twice now, are just as extreme.

And I still hold, and I've commented to that effect twice now, that you are not correct in your assessment.

I think most people that voice something against Come And Get It have more reasons than just that reason to dislike 4e.

Yes, and I pointed out and acknowledged that. Nice cherry-pick though.

But, that's the point Ahnehnois is making, isn't it? Those spells are options (Neonchameleon doesn't have to pick them, but he always will, or he can't feel like he connects to his character), just as much as Come And Get It is. You can easily completely house rule either one out, or avoid using them with your character for any number of reasons (as I've told Neonchameleon before, one of my best friends is a soldier -deploying again this year- and his stories are of men that are anything but always using optimal tactics to keep themselves out of danger). As always, play what you like

Houseruling those things out in 3.x are far, far more difficult, in no small part because there are so many more of them. I've tried.

 

[pemerton]

I said that these dismissive posts happen. But, I said that they usually don't happen by posters who engage in these long debates

The person to whom I replied in post 570 has posted extensively in this thread. The same poster also posted extensively in the contemperaneous scene-framing thread.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Right? Isn't this the case for any player that doesn't want their game disrupted?

So disruption involves people having abilities you don't like. And yet there are a grand total of four such abilities in the whole of the 4e PHB. None of them as disurptive to a game as the 3.5 Polymorph which was itself a handful of spells and the basis of an entire class feature.

Any given power in the 4e PHB is less important than any given spell in the 3.5 PHB because there's only one single class that can take it and that as a chargen option.

No I'm not, man. I'm saying that they don't want others at the table to have it, since it disrupts their play. And yes, tables can resolve these issues, as they always have (HP, rage/day, etc.), but it's no surprise that people object to it. Nor is it particularly unreasonable to want particularly contentious powers/abilities to be more explicitly optional, in my opinion.

What is utterly unreasonable is the entire reams of threads about one optional class feature that's one out of the five options given for a level 7 encounter power for the fighter in the PHB. This isn't like daily rage. Every single Barbarian from first level has daily rage. Every single Druid from fifth has Wild Shape. Yet because a flip through the PHB found that there exists a total of four powers people don't like, literally all of them already entirely optional people write reams about how they don't like them.What are you asking for? "This power is superoptional - not only do people have to select it as a class feature but the entire table has to agree"?

I've probably seen about 6-8 different Fighter builds, and probably 5-6 of them had Come And Get It.

I can believe it. People play what they like And a lot of people like CAGI. What is the problem with this?

I think you made a caricature of the arguments. You "distilled" them to such a point that they were oversimplified (only applying for warriors being afraid, for starters),

Given that the entire argument against CAGI is warrior-specific, as is the one against Own the Battlefield, this is not an oversimplification.

As always, play what you like

And if what we like includes CAGI, get ready for reams of people complaining. Even when they end all their replies "As always, play what you like " - apparently that includes optional class abilities not being optional enough.

 

[JamesonCourage]

That's not what I said, at all. Your paraphrase fails to capture my point. You just "made a caricature of my argument."

Well, I'll let other people decide on that. But I'm done replying to you about this for now, since I don't see it going anywhere civil.

Again, this is at least in part to misunderstanding or deliberate misreading of what I wrote. What I said doesn't mean that people can't question believability.

I quoted it twice. Letting people decide what you said. Done debating this, too.

And I still hold, and I've commented to that effect twice now, that you are not correct in your assessment.

Agreeing to disagree.

Yes, and I pointed out and acknowledged that. Nice cherry-pick though.

I literally replied to your whole post, with the context of two posts that came just before it. Not arguing about this with you.

Houseruling those things out in 3.x are far, far more difficult, in no small part because there are so many more of them. I've tried.

I guess it depends on what you want out of the game, but I agreed that I eventually house ruled 3.5 so much that I just made my own system based on those rules. As always, play what you like

The person to whom I replied in post 570 has posted extensively in this thread. The same poster also posted extensively in the contemperaneous scene-framing thread.

Thus my qualifier of "usually" and my reference to a poster who does this (ForeverSlayer). They're the exception to the rule, and, again, you seem to be quoting other posters (like Imaro) and attributing other motivations to his posts. That's what I'm referring to. As always, play what you like

So disruption involves people having abilities you don't like. And yet there are a grand total of four such abilities in the whole of the 4e PHB. None of them as disurptive to a game as the 3.5 Polymorph which was itself a handful of spells and the basis of an entire class feature.

Depending on what counts as disruption for your table, then... right? The argument of "3.X can disrupt things too!" will just make me nod my head in agreement. It certainly can for certain tables, for a variety of different reasons with a variety of different abilities (and I listed examples for 3.X, incidentally).

What is utterly unreasonable is the entire reams of threads about one optional class feature that's one out of the five options given for a level 7 encounter power for the fighter in the PHB. This isn't like daily rage. Every single Barbarian from first level has daily rage. Every single Druid from fifth has Wild Shape. Yet because a flip through the PHB found that there exists a total of four powers people don't like, literally all of them already entirely optional people write reams about how they don't like them.What are you asking for? "This power is superoptional - not only do people have to select it as a class feature but the entire table has to agree"?

I feel like you're ignoring the point I'm trying to make, so I think I'll opt out of this argument, too.

I can believe it. People play what they like And a lot of people like CAGI. What is the problem with this?

Inherently, nothing. I'll let you go back and reread for context.

Given that the entire argument against CAGI is warrior-specific, as is the one against Own the Battlefield, this is not an oversimplification.

But the enemies used were universally martial, and the fear effect (not CAGI) only applied to warriors.

And if what we like includes CAGI, get ready for reams of people complaining. Even when they end all their replies "As always, play what you like " - apparently that includes optional class abilities not being optional enough.

Hey man, I said I'm fine with it being optional, so don't shoot me. I was saying reasons why "but it's an option" may not satisfy other people. So, aim your shots elsewhere -I'm just the messenger. As always, play what you like

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

I wouldn't be surprised if something happened, should Next not make the grade.

Also, I'm really keyed up for FATE Core! Booyah!

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, that's the point Ahnehnois is making, isn't it? Those spells are options (Neonchameleon doesn't have to pick them, but he always will, or he can't feel like he connects to his character), just as much as Come And Get It is. You can easily completely house rule either one out, or avoid using them with your character for any number of reasons (as I've told Neonchameleon before, one of my best friends is a soldier -deploying again this year- and his stories are of men that are anything but always using optimal tactics to keep themselves out of danger). As always, play what you like

The point is that wizards were never overpowered as some have suggested. At worst, spells were overpowered.

And, to bring in another point, if there's a typical style of play or a way that wizards are in most games, that "average" wizard picks mostly direct damage spells and utility spells. The average cleric picks random spells and burns them all for cures. The average druid picks cures because he can't spontaneously cast them and mixes in a few utility spells. None of those characters is remotely overpowered, even in 3.5 at high level with every supplement you like. If you don't like angel summoners and BMX bandits (I still have no idea what those are), they're every bit as optional as CaGI or any other specific character ability someone wants to beat on.

The unwillingness of certain individuals to judge all versions of the game by the same standards is unfortunate.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

Odd that you can have such a strong opinion of it, including the motivations of its authors, not even having read it.

Nonetheless, I don't think DW is for everyone.