Falling from Great Heights

[El Mahdi]

Like I said in a game like Shadowrun law enforcement, private security can be a match for the runners. It will never be come I am so high level I don't have to worry if there are ten Lone Star officers with smart guns pointed at me they can't hit me because I am now Superman.

D&D is not Shadowrun at all. AT ALL.

I think all of us: Elf Witch, you, me, and just about every other gamer - understands that Shadowrun is not D&D.

Elf Witch isn't saying that D&D should be played as Shadowrun (though it can be, and that is completely acceptable).

She's describing a conept in D&D where players can make decisions, unrealistic decisions, because they know the rules and mechanics of the game will allow them to (even if that wasn't the specific design goal of the game - and I don't think it was). Many people do not like that style of gaming, but overall like D&D, and would like to play D&D with rules that allow them to play in the style they want.

The point is, that D&D is a game that allows for many different styles of play. It allows for those that like realism (based on whatever premise, be it real world or an internally consistent fantasy world). It allows for those that like the game aspects predominantly. And it allows for those that like the story aspects. And it allows for every possible combination. Even though different editions have done it better than others, and different editions have emphasized different aspects more than others.

D&D Next IS going to be a game that balances all of these concepts, makes them all available, and promotes all players of all styles to enjoy what they like, play what they like, and even play together (at least to an extent). Monte and Company have repeatedly said that is the overarching goal and theme of D&D Next.


Now, I'm not trying to start a fight or call you out in a negative manner. I'm honestly curious, so I just want to ask a simple question...

It seems rather obvious from what you've posted, and from your strident declarations of "what D&D is...", that you're significantly reticent towards anyone playing the game, or the next edition being designed in a way, that varies or expands from what you believe D&D has always been or is.

My question is: Why?



If I've mischaracterized your statements, perhaps you could provide me with clarification of what you do believe about D&D, and point out where I've misinterpreted you. You don't have to, of course. But if you want to, I'd really like to have my interpretation of your statements corrected if I'm wrong.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think all of us, Elf Witch, you, me, and just about every other gamer, understands that Shadowrun is not D&D.

Elf Witch isn't saying that D&D should be played as Shadowrun (though it can be, and that is completely acceptable).

She's describing a conept in D&D where players can make decisions, unrealistic decisions,

This is the problem right here.

The decisions the PCs make are not unrealistic in the world in which they exist. They are unrealistic in Shadowrun. They are unrealistic in the real world. They are perfectly realistic in D&D. This is the huge disconnect. D&D, as presently written, has a very specific universe, and many people are constantly confusing it with a completely different fantasy universe they have cooked up in their head from some other source.

Laughing at generic city guards, in 4E D&D, when you are level 20, is realistic.

because they know the rules and mechanics of the game will allow them to (even if it wasn't specifically designed to do so). Many people do not like that style of gaming, but overall like D&D, and would like to play D&D with rules that allow them to play in the style they want.

The rules reflect the reality of the world. As for different WORLDS, absolutely. I find it deeply unfortunate that there have been no such optional rules for worlds where guards are always a threat. A lack of optional rules is a huge huge huge flaw in 4E.

The point is, that D&D is a game that allows for many different styles of play. It allows for those that like realism (based on whatever premise, be it real world or an internally consistent fantasy world).

Ehhh. I'd say no, it isn't, but it could and it should. D&D, in 4E, is based on a world that does not match what most people could call realistic. That is why I enjoy it so much! But while rules to add Real Life Realism to the game could be made, they haven't, at least not by WotC.

It allows for those that like the game aspects predominantly. And it allows for those that like the story aspects. And it allows for every possible combination.

Though different editions have done it better than others, and different editions have emphasize different aspects more than others.

D&D Next IS going to be a game that balances all of these concepts, makes them all available, and promotes all players of all styles to enjoy what they like, play what they like, and even play them together. Monte and Company have repeatedly said that is the overarching goal and theme of D&D Next.

That is their claim, yes. I wish they had bothered trying it in 4E rather than starting from scratch.

Now, I'm not trying to start a fight or call you out in a negative manner. I'm honestly curious, so I just want to ask a simple question...

It seems rather obvious from what you've posted, and from your strident declarations of "what D&D is...", that you're significantly reticent towards anyone playing the game, or the next edition being designed in a way, that varies or expands from what you believe D&D has always been.

My question is: Why?

If I've mischaracterized your statements, perhaps you could provide me with clarification of what you do believe about D&D, and point out where I've misinterpreted you. You don't have to, of course. But if you want to, I'd really like to have my interpretation of your statements corrected if I'm wrong.

The answer is No.

I have issues with people arguing based on a fiction they have created in their heads. D&D, thus far, lays down a specific concept. We can absolutely discuss the merits of that concept. We can talk about how that concept differs from other concepts. We can talk about how we can expand that concept. We can talk about adding new concepts using similar tools. We cannot talk about how D&D teaches you how to use psychic powers to derail trains - it does not do that.

 

[Aaron]

If a high level PC get threatened by a dozen country bandits armed with crossbows he would never acquiesce to their demands, because he would know that he can single handendly defeat all of them in a bunch of rounds.

I hate hate the mechanic that allows high level characters not to be threatened by a dozen cross bows or bows aimed at them. I hate the meta gaming that goes on with it an if I could figure out a way to fix this bug I would.

fenriswolf456[/URL]]Which, like Elf Witch, is one of the things I really don't like about level based games. It ends up encouraging such meta-game considerations. And because of this, it starts begging the question as to why there are even armies kept. Going just by stats, you're right, a high level character would annihilate an army of level 1 recruits, even if they number in the thousands. If that's the game you like, please enjoy. To me, that's all but incomprehensible.

If a high level character should fear a dozen country bandits armed with crossbows it means that:

1) we are talking about country bandits who could face an ancient red wyrm;

2) ancient red wyrms are no more deadly than a dozen country bandits.

I don't really understand how you can make your world intrinsically coherent, and I'm talking seriously, do not get me wrong: why should a high level PC in his right mind face an ancient red wyrm if he should fear a dozen country bandits?

And, really, @fenriswolf456 : what's so incomprehensible?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't really understand how you can make your world intrinsically coherent, and I'm talking seriously, do not get me wrong: why should a high level PC in his right mind face an ancient red wyrm if he should fear a dozen country bandits?

More attacks to defend against. Going up against a tank is bad, but I don't feel too good when twelve guys in a semicircle confront me with guns drawn. If I'm very skilled and well equipped, I have a better chance against the tank. In other fiction, I'll just kill all the guys with guns. They'll miss, I'll win.

But it's perfectly understandable why a dozen guys with crossbows drawn on you can be more dangerous than a single dragon. As always, play what you like

 

[BryonD]

But it's perfectly understandable why a dozen guys with crossbows drawn on you can be more dangerous than a single dragon. As always, play what you like

But there truly is the classic trope of entire villages (or kingdoms) shaking in fear from a single dragon and the hero knight coming to save the day.
Under the scenario you describe, any backwater village could scrape together 12 grunts with crossbows and have dragon stew boiling by supper.

I COMPLETELY agree with you that economy of actions is an important issue and numbers can very reasonably be expected to increase combat effectiveness very effectively. But in the sweet spot that D&D has generally embraced that isn't a very important factor.

Play what you like is totally right. But this forum is about D&D, and not just D&D but the theoretical D&D Next designed to capture the spirit (and fan base) of all D&D before. So it is possible for what one likes to both be completely valid and yet also completely irrelevant to this specific forum.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But there truly is the classic trope of entire villages (or kingdoms) shaking in fear from a single dragon and the hero knight coming to save the day.
Under the scenario you describe, any backwater village could scrape together 12 grunts with crossbows and have dragon stew boiling by supper.

Not if their weapons aren't effective against the dragon.

No matter what your feelings on the film are, take the movie DragonHeart (personally, I love me some Sean Connery dragon): in that, the dragon and the dragon-slayer fake out towns by having the dragon attack and the dragon-slayer "kill" it. This works a few times, but then the dragon falls into a lake and can't sink, and flies away before the villagers can eat him. They then turn as a mob to chase the dragon-slayer, who runs, because a mob will kill him (just like they killed the previous king).

A mob of humans is dangerous to humans. A storm of arrows may not even pierce the dragon's hide (via damage reduction, for example). This means that strong warriors (like a mounted knight with a lance) could pierce the hide of the dragon, but a town couldn't (thus the need for adventurers, courageous knights, etc.).

Play what you like is totally right. But this forum is about D&D, and not just D&D but the theoretical D&D Next designed to capture the spirit (and fan base) of all D&D before. So it is possible for what one likes to both be completely valid and yet also completely irrelevant to this specific forum.

True, but I don't feel I've hit on that at all. As always, play what you like

 

[BryonD]

True, but I don't feel I've hit on that at all. As always, play what you like

I disagree. You gave one example and that example was actually an example of making a point of playing AGAINST the cliche.

I think you have absolutely run into that with the dragon example.

But, more importantly, you are simply up against a great deal of history when it comes to the assumptions and archetypes specifically in D&D. I don't think you can show that 12 mook level guys with crossbows has EVER been more dangerous than a top tier dragon in D&D. And dragons were a good deal less potent in older versions.

Again, no complaint whatsoever against the style you are advocating. But when you hold that up as a standard not just for what D&D should be, but for what D&D *has been* then you hit it. You hit it real hard.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I disagree. You gave one example and that example was actually an example of making a point of playing AGAINST the cliche.

I think you have absolutely run into that with the dragon example.

No, it happens frequently. Even in the last LotR movie, Gandolf seems to think he's about to die while fighting troops, and that's after he's defeated the Balrog and came back even more powerful than before.

When Strider is tracking the hobbits down with Gimli and Legolas, they get surrounded by mounted riders. Sure, Legolas could have gotten a shot off first, but they were obviously in a terrible situation.

Jamie Lannister, basically the best swordsman around, is overwhelmed by troops and captured.

When Rand al'Thor is training against four men, he gets on hit on each, but the last one hits him in the head. He routinely takes on the Forsaken.

This is not uncommon by any means in fantasy.

But, more importantly, you are simply up against a great deal of history when it comes to the assumptions and archetypes specifically in D&D. I don't think you can show that 12 mook level guys with crossbows has EVER been more dangerous than a top tier dragon in D&D. And dragons were a good deal less potent in older versions.

This is a discussion on making D&D 5e, and not making it like every past edition. Retaining the spirit, yes, but not exactly the same. And, found in a module or otherwise, speaking of more "realistic" rules that are in line with the fantasy genre.

Again, no complaint whatsoever against the style you are advocating. But when you hold that up as a standard not just for what D&D should be, but for what D&D *has been* then you hit it. You hit it real hard.

I'm not saying "this is what D&D has been", and I'm sorry that wasn't clear enough. I'm saying "this is how people have played D&D before", and the spirit of D&D definitely resides within that statement. Look at Elf Witch: she dislikes when people say "whatever, I'm high level" in D&D. This is someone talking about how they play D&D, and I find that directly applicable to the discussion of the spirit of D&D.

Sure, you don't play it that way. Many other people do houserule save or die from damage, instant death in lava, and similar effects. I, personally, haven't ever done those, but people have played D&D this way for decades. It is well within the spirit of D&D in may groups, but not the rules. And that, really, is at the heart of this debate. As always, play what you like

 

[Incenjucar]

Hopefully the modules will include rules to actually include those incongruous playstyles so that people no longer have to be upset that the rules ignore how they play, without simply thrusting the issue on people who have been playing more in line with the rules.

 

[pemerton]

players can make decisions, unrealistic decisions, because they know the rules and mechanics of the game will allow them to (even if that wasn't the specific design goal of the game - and I don't think it was). Many people do not like that style of gaming, but overall like D&D, and would like to play D&D with rules that allow them to play in the style they want.

As I've already mentioned, this is the bit I have trouble with. (Not in the sense of objecting to it, but as not really getting it.)

Because I can't see hp rules, or saving throw rules, as anything but metagame mechanics (and Gygax describes that way in his DMG), I can't take any objection to players making decisions based on their knowledge of their metagame situation. Conversely, if I wanted a game in which players made decisions for their PCs based purely on the ingame situation, I would play a game without those metagame elements.

In the context of falling damage, or twelve guards with crossbows, the metagame rules mean that a player knows that, if his/her PC jumps over the cliff, or tries to rush the guards, the PC has a pretty good chance of pulling it off. That's the point of the metagame mechanics.