Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 5871449" data-attributes="member: 52073">Let me rephrase in bullet points to make sure my point gets across loud and clear:--D&amp;D has always had a power curve where you go from &quot;bound by normal physics&quot; to &quot;bound by action-movie physics&quot; to &quot;Greek mythic hero&quot; to &quot;superhuman&quot; to &quot;godlike.&quot;&nbsp; The game fluff matches this power curve, and codifies levels by things like BECMI and Heroic/Paragon/Epic and such.--In that context, survivable falls aren't a bug, they're a feature; they would be a bug if they were the only mechanic like that, but the whole game works that way at those levels, and part of the reason many people play D&amp;D as opposed to more realistic fantasy RPGs is exactly that power curve that lets you go from &quot;zero&quot; to &quot;hero&quot; and not from &quot;zero&quot; to &quot;one&quot; or &quot;hero&quot; to &quot;more hero&quot;.--Many people don't like that and think D&amp;D should be &quot;grittier.&quot;&nbsp; Statements by these people often imply that, in their opinion, 20th level is just 1st level with bigger numbers and that high-level heroes should be bound by realism.&nbsp; Yet they also expect high-level heroes to face the challenges that high-level character do and survive.&nbsp; It is appropriate in this case to point out, as I did, that mechanically and flavor-wise high level PCs have bypassed human limits a long time ago and that if you want a more realistic game you have to take that into account.--Some of those people think that the base D&amp;D game should be grittier and that the heroic stuff should be added on later.&nbsp; This often takes the form of reductionist base rules (e.g. acid and lava = death) which provide a framework upon which it is difficult to build more heroic rules for people who want them.&nbsp; It is appropriate in this case to point out, as I did, that it is much easier to add simpler/realistic rules variants (not just rip out the more complex ones, as you stated) than it is to try to expand simpler/realistic rules into more complex/heroic rules variants.--Because of this issue of complexity, and the fact that if you start at &quot;realistic&quot; it's much harder to reach &quot;godlike&quot; but if you start at &quot;heroic&quot; it's easier to go both in the &quot;realistic&quot; and &quot;godlike&quot; directions, it is better for the game to start in the middle with heroic PCs and a ramping-up power curve and allow for variations up and down.&nbsp; It is appropriate in this case to point out, as I did (but perhaps not clearly enough), that if you start at &quot;realistic&quot; you can't really accommodate people on both ends of the scale as much as you can if you start in the middle, so if D&amp;D Next is trying to be as inclusive as possible (and it claims it is) it should start in the middle.So, to sum up: You like &quot;realistic&quot; games, someone else likes &quot;mythic hero&quot; games, I like being able to do both.&nbsp; If you keep the D&amp;D power curve, you can play your game at low levels and they can play their game at high levels, and you can houserule mid levels to look like low levels and they can houserule mid levels to look like high levels, and I can enjoy both without much houseruling.&nbsp; If you change D&amp;D to be gritty by default, you can play your game at low levels and mid levels and maybe even high levels, but I'm getting less of the parts of the game I enjoy and Mr. Mythic Hero doesn't really get to enjoy his favorite parts of the game at all.&nbsp; So if every individual group should be able to determine how D&amp;D plays at their table, as you said, then we absolutely should keep the middle ground and leave high-power/low-power/high-magic/low-magic/etc. for expansions instead of favoring one end or the other.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Eldritch_Lord, post: 5871449, member: 52073"] Let me rephrase in bullet points to make sure my point gets across loud and clear: --D&D has always had a power curve where you go from "bound by normal physics" to "bound by action-movie physics" to "Greek mythic hero" to "superhuman" to "godlike." The game fluff matches this power curve, and codifies levels by things like BECMI and Heroic/Paragon/Epic and such. --In that context, survivable falls aren't a bug, they're a feature; they would be a bug if they were the only mechanic like that, but the whole game works that way at those levels, and part of the reason many people play D&D as opposed to more realistic fantasy RPGs is exactly that power curve that lets you go from "zero" to "hero" and not from "zero" to "one" or "hero" to "more hero". --Many people don't like that and think D&D should be "grittier." Statements by these people often imply that, in their opinion, 20th level is just 1st level with bigger numbers and that high-level heroes should be bound by realism. Yet they also expect high-level heroes to face the challenges that high-level character do and survive. It is appropriate in this case to point out, as I did, that mechanically and flavor-wise high level PCs have bypassed human limits a long time ago and that if you want a more realistic game you have to take that into account. --Some of those people think that the base D&D game should be grittier and that the heroic stuff should be added on later. This often takes the form of reductionist base rules (e.g. acid and lava = death) which provide a framework upon which it is difficult to build more heroic rules for people who want them. It is appropriate in this case to point out, as I did, that it is much easier to [I]add[/I] simpler/realistic rules variants (not just rip out the more complex ones, as you stated) than it is to try to expand simpler/realistic rules into more complex/heroic rules variants. --Because of this issue of complexity, and the fact that if you start at "realistic" it's much harder to reach "godlike" but if you start at "heroic" it's easier to go both in the "realistic" and "godlike" directions, it is better for the game to start in the middle with heroic PCs and a ramping-up power curve and allow for variations up and down. It is appropriate in this case to point out, as I did (but perhaps not clearly enough), that if you start at "realistic" you can't really accommodate people on both ends of the scale as much as you can if you start in the middle, so if D&D Next is [I]trying[/I] to be as inclusive as possible (and it claims it is) it [I]should[/I] start in the middle. So, to sum up: You like "realistic" games, someone else likes "mythic hero" games, I like being able to do both. If you keep the D&D power curve, you can play your game at low levels and they can play their game at high levels, and you can houserule mid levels to look like low levels and they can houserule mid levels to look like high levels, and I can enjoy both without much houseruling. If you change D&D to be gritty by default, you can play your game at low levels and mid levels and maybe even high levels, but I'm getting less of the parts of the game I enjoy and Mr. Mythic Hero doesn't really get to enjoy his favorite parts of the game at all. So if every individual group [I]should[/I] be able to determine how D&D plays at their table, as you said, then we absolutely [I]should[/I] keep the middle ground and leave high-power/low-power/high-magic/low-magic/etc. for expansions instead of favoring one end or the other. [/QUOTE]

Verification