Falling from Great Heights

[Aaron]

s. The difference is that the hero's actually have the audacity or insanity to try...while the rest of the ordianary people, and the town guard, do not.

No matter the audacity and/or insanity of the guards: they can't defeat an ancient red wyrm.

High level PCs can, even if they are a bunch of cowards.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes. Both are true. It depends on the type of game you want to play. D&D has been able to be played both ways since it's creation. Though mechanically, different editions have made this easier than others, and all have been mechanically weighted away from the ordianry hero style.

I'm certianly hoping that 5E is designed in a way that both can be supported equally...which is really the point of this whole, long, circular discussion.

However, I think your characterisation of the differences between the two styles is a little misleading. Sure, in the ordinary hero style, it is true that anyone can kill the big bad monsters. The difference is that the hero's actually have the audacity or insanity to try...while the rest of the ordianary people, and the town guard, do not.

Well, I would say you could have a system where at high enough level the PCs (or NPC heroes) are playing in a different league than the town guard, or you don't. If you don't then well, sure, ALL monsters could be killable by anyone with the luck and audacity to try it, but that doesn't leave a lot of way for the PCs to really be special.

There are of course systems that DO work like this, to some extent. Generally though your big nasty dragons and such are very 'off stage' most of the time. It is sort of like CoC, you don't bring Great Old Ones into the picture often, and when you do it is only at the very climax of some long story arc. You generally don't expect the game to continue (at least in the same direction) past that point. Of course in CoC GOO's are pretty much unkillable, which need not be true of say a dragon in some other genre, but you are winning with a lot of luck and probably a lot of casualties.

IMHO the overall popularity of D&D has a lot to do with the way you DO progress 'beyond' certain threats and into a level where other threats can usually be defeated or at least it isn't crazy to try. Many other FRPGs have TRIED to do this in various ways, but I think D&D's level based system does it most clearly and distinctly and that's why we all play D&D most of the time and not RQ or GURPS Fantasy.

 

[El Mahdi]

Well, I would say you could have a system where at high enough level the PCs (or NPC heroes) are playing in a different league than the town guard, or you don't. If you don't then well, sure, ALL monsters could be killable by anyone with the luck and audacity to try it, but that doesn't leave a lot of way for the PCs to really be special.

You mean other than the PC's actions and choices making them special, compared to those who won't dare...

Potential, training, and raw talent can certainly facilitate becoming a hero...but it's not a given that those who possess these do become hero's.

There are a lot of different things that can be described as special. Gonzo superhero abilities are certainly not the only ones.

There are of course systems that DO work like this, to some extent. Generally though your big nasty dragons and such are very 'off stage' most of the time. It is sort of like CoC, you don't bring Great Old Ones into the picture often, and when you do it is only at the very climax of some long story arc. You generally don't expect the game to continue (at least in the same direction) past that point. Of course in CoC GOO's are pretty much unkillable, which need not be true of say a dragon in some other genre, but you are winning with a lot of luck and probably a lot of casualties.

And this means what...? Those who want something else out of D&D should just stop bothering you all with our desires and go play something else...?

How about...NO.

IMHO the overall popularity of D&D has a lot to do with the way you DO progress 'beyond' certain threats and into a level where other threats can usually be defeated or at least it isn't crazy to try. Many other FRPGs have TRIED to do this in various ways, but I think D&D's level based system does it most clearly and distinctly and that's why we all play D&D most of the time and not RQ or GURPS Fantasy.

The popularity of D&D has a lot to do with a lot of things, with the way characters progress as only a part of that...and a variable part at that, based on each and every gamers individual preferences. And NO...that's not why we all play D&D most of the time.

But apparently, wanting to have a D&D that can support a more realistic style of play (as well as all other styles of play) is important to a large number of D&D fans...as the 350+ pages of this thread can attest to.

Talk all one wants about how to make this a module in 5E. Talk all one wants to about what mechanics best provide this sense of realism that some want. But having one talking about why this should not be a part of D&D, is a futile conversation from the start. You want what you want out of D&D. Other people want what they want out of D&D. D&D is a big enough game that all can be accomodated without impinging upon what you want.

Why is that such a problem to so many...?

 

[El Mahdi]

No matter the audacity and/or insanity of the guards: they can't defeat an ancient red wyrm.

High level PCs can, no matter if they are a bunch of cowards.

Really...?!?

Why is that?


Given enough time and enough of them, I'd say not only can they, but it would be inevitable that they would.

Simple water drops can wear down a mountain to nothing. A swarm of Ants can reduce an Elephant to bones.

City Guards can defeat an Ancient Red Wyrm. They only don't because the think they can't, or aren't willing to pay the price necessary.

That's the idea behind the Ordinary Hero style of play. That may not be what you like, but enough do. And D&D is big enough to accomodate us all.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, this whole conversation is about which version of high level PCs will be core: Freaks of Nature, Superheroic Paragons, or More Skilled Regulars.

I think FoN will be core and MSR and SHP will be modules. Mostly because FoN requires the fewest rules.

 

[Hussar]

Really...?!?

Why is that?


Given enough time and enough of them, I'd say not only can they, but it would be inevitable that they would.

Simple water drops can wear down a mountain to nothing. A swarm of Ants can reduce an Elephant to bones.

City Guards can defeat an Ancient Red Wyrm. They only don't because the think they can't, or aren't willing to pay the price necessary.

That's the idea behind the Ordinary Hero style of play. That may not be what you like, but enough do. And D&D is big enough to accomodate us all.

There's a problem with your analogy though. Drops of water and ants will eventually wear something down. But, it's awfully hard on each ant or drop of water. Do you want the game to presume that you're going to burn through a couple of dozen PC's every adventure? IIRC, there's an old Strategic Review (Or really, really early Dragon) article talking about how the party went through a thousand PC's in a single campaign.

Because, that's what Ordinary Hero means. At least, that's what you're saying here. We only succeed by failing ten thousand times first.

Realistically, no, the commoners cannot defeat the dragon. They run out of people first. Again, going back to the old saw about 1 million 5th level NPC's vs a 20th level lich and the lich wins. A largish (CR 15+) 3e dragon is nigh-invincible to anything you would find in a town, barring DM fiat Macguffins.

 

[Balesir]

There are a lot of different things that can be described as special. Gonzo superhero abilities are certainly not the only ones.

Quite right, they are not - but they are the ones specifically modelled by "levels" in every edition to date of D&D.

Talk all one wants about how to make this a module in 5E. Talk all one wants to about what mechanics best provide this sense of realism that some want. But having one talking about why this should not be a part of D&D, is a futile conversation from the start. You want what you want out of D&D. Other people want what they want out of D&D. D&D is a big enough game that all can be accomodated without impinging upon what you want.

Let's start with "You want what you want out of roleplaying. Other people want what they want out of roleplaying. Roleplaying is a big enough [hobby] that all can be accomodated without impinging upon what you want".

This I will very happily agree with. Trying to compress all of the scope of roleplaying into one game system, however, strikes me as abject folly.

Why is that such a problem to so many...?

Possibly because taking a shaft of wood with a dirty great cube of steel stuck on one end and suggesting that, as well as being used for hammering in pegs and nails, it could be useful for cutting planks of wood and screwing in screws as well seems frankly daft?

There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with wanting a (pseudo-)realistic roleplaying game. The only mystery is why anyone would conceive of starting with (any edition of) D&D as a set of mechanics for doing so!

 

[El Mahdi]

There's a problem with your analogy though. Drops of water and ants will eventually wear something down. But, it's awfully hard on each ant or drop of water. Do you want the game to presume that you're going to burn through a couple of dozen PC's every adventure? IIRC, there's an old Strategic Review (Or really, really early Dragon) article talking about how the party went through a thousand PC's in a single campaign.

Because, that's what Ordinary Hero means. At least, that's what you're saying here. We only succeed by failing ten thousand times first.

Realistically, no, the commoners cannot defeat the dragon. They run out of people first. Again, going back to the old saw about 1 million 5th level NPC's vs a 20th level lich and the lich wins. A largish (CR 15+) 3e dragon is nigh-invincible to anything you would find in a town, barring DM fiat Macguffins.

I wasn't talking about just ordianary heros in that quote. I was mostly responding to one specific point: that the city guard couldn't defeat an ancient red wyrm.

And Yes, I know it would be hard on the guards that are part of it, and most would die. Which is why I said: They only don't because the think they can't, or aren't willing to pay the price necessary.

Ordianry Hero's are Heros that don't have supernatural or special abilities above any other common man. What they do have is the knowledge, and the audacity, to take on the challenges that others won't...and succeed.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether the guards can accomplish this or not. I'm not going to get into a debat involving specifics about a hypothetical fantasy scenario.

What I will say, is that there is nothing that mankind can't accomplished when we put our minds and resolve to it. And if Ancient Red Wyrms were real, then that statement would be true concerning them also.



But really, why is this something you've chosen to debate? Why is it you want to nix the very idea of Ordinary Hero's?

You may not be interested in them, wouldn't read a story about them, or play a game like this...but why do you feel the need to nullify the very idea...? Is it that you just don't want D&D to be played this way at all...? Is it you don't want the rules to support this even if it doesn't impinge upon your playstyle...?

I just don't understand why your still continuing to argue against this...

 

[Mattachine]

I think part of the problem is that many folks feel that the standard D&D of the edition they like does simulate the realistic style of play they've come to like, and that other people feel that that very same edition simulates the heroic fantasy style of play they have come to like.

Weird--people take away very different experiences from the same game. I wonder how many folks are forgetting or overlooking their various house rules, optional rules/Dragon Magazine modifications, and the rules that get ignored in their games?

 

[El Mahdi]

Quite right, they are not - but they are the ones specifically modelled by "levels" in every edition to date of D&D.

I agree. But that doesn't mean that D&D Next can't support both. Why is that a problem for you?

Let's start with "You want what you want out of roleplaying. Other people want what they want out of roleplaying. Roleplaying is a big enough [hobby] that all can be accomodated without impinging upon what you want".

This I will very happily agree with. Trying to compress all of the scope of roleplaying into one game system, however, strikes me as abject folly.

No, I think I'll keep it as it was, thank you very much.

"You want what you want out of D&D Next. Other people want what they want out of D&D Next. D&D Next is a big enough hobby game that all can be accomodated without impinging upon what you want."

What part of a unifying edition do you not understand...? If you consider the goals of D&D Next as abject folly, then why are you here in the D&D Next forums...?

Seems to me that posting in a thread, in a forum about the next edition of D&D, an edition that has stated it's goals as unyeildingly unifying, when one is against that very notion...that is abject folly.

There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with wanting a (pseudo-)realistic roleplaying game. The only mystery is why anyone would conceive of starting with (any edition of) D&D as a set of mechanics for doing so!

If you haven't figured it out by now, by reading this thread, then you're simply not ever going to understand it. That's okay though, you don't have to. What would be nice from you though, is tolerance for opinions and desires that don't match your own, whether you understand them or not. May as well simply start accepting that and move on. Leave talk of the inclusion of things in D&D Next that you don't like, to those that do like them, and just be happy that D&D Next will also continue to have what you want.