Heroes, Zeroes, and Kings

[I'm A Banana]

You know, these sorts of arguments (which invariably summon up Heracles, Cuculain, et al) would be a lot more compelling if the characters involved weren't at least partly (and in some cases fully) divine.

Got it in one.

Every case of "normal folk" doing "superhuman things" is a case of those things being somehow magical. They're semi-divine, or they've got sweet gear, or awesome tech, or they're somehow inhuman (training beyond the most elite training!).

I think it's fine to accommodate powerful fighters by making them as supernatural as Heracles or Batman. I think the resistance to this is mostly couched in people who really would like everything to remain at a lower power in the first place -- they'd limit things so that they never exceeded a certain threshold of awesome. Which is a fine and dandy way to play, but D&D has had quite the tradition of wahoo high level shenanigans (killing gods!), and that needs to remain within the scope of the game.

Want your fighter to cap out at being some sort of powerful lord of all he surveys? You can stop playing at level 15 (or whatever). Just because there's all that wahoo in the endgame doesn't mean you ever need to use the material, and it'll be no big loss for you. So rather than stretching your play preference into the whole game, play your way, and others will play theirs.

 

[SKyOdin]

Mostly in 4E.

For 34 years, first level PCs were not quite heroes yet. They fought. They often won. They might be considered heroes after the fact, but until 4E, they were paper tigers who could be wiped out via a small string of unlucky die rolls by a small group of low level NPCs (and pre-3E, zero hit points meant dead).

4E was the first edition that gave all PCs the survivability and the tools (like At Will powers for spell casters) to possibly even be considered heroes who could hold off waves of attacking kobolds. Anymore, the word hero is banded about right and left. But when AD&D first came out, it was a word reserved for 4th level Fighters and NPCs out of Deities and Demigods. When AD&D first came out, PCs were Acolytes and Apprentices, not heroes. They were cautious because they were vulnerable, they weren't cocky because they were so tough.

Why are you turning this into an edition war? I was actually making reference in part to a 3E campaign I was part of when I was talking about heroic PCs at first level. This isn't an edition thing, it is a playstyle thing. I could run a 1E campaign with heroic characters at first level if I really wanted, since much of that feel is built through campaign and narrative choices.

In any case, "superhero" (I prefer the term mythic, myself) level characters of all classes must exist in D&D, even if it is just in an add-on module. There is an obvious demand for them among various elements of D&D's fanbase. Or are you opposed to the idea even as an add-on module?

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't think that's quite true though. The game is saying that someone who plays by the rules (of physics) is not, by himself and in his underwear, the equal of someone who eats physics for breakfast.

Being two-faced about physics is intellectually dishonest. Either we apply the rules to everyone, or we don't. Imagine if you were playing a game a Monopoly and the rules say the Car gets $500 for passing go, but the Shoe only gets $100. There's no explicit benefit to playing the shoe to counteract it's handicap. While we're at it, lets say the Car can roll doubles all day and never go to jail. Furthermore the Car has the option to just move to whatever square it wants regardless of the dice rolls.

This is basically the problem that exists when we say that the Fighter has to play by the rules and the Wizard doesn't. The rules are arbitrary, they only exist because someone wants them to. So to take arbitrary rules and claim that they must be followed because they're "the rules" is very short-sighted and just plain two-faced.

This is about like admitting that a long infantryman is not the equal of an apache gunship or main battle tank. I fail to be amazed.

The apache gunship and the long infantryman play by the same rules though, the apache is more like a 20th level infantyman than a creature that plays by it's own rules.. The Wizard and the Fighter do not, and that is inherently the problem.

To make that infantryman the equal of a gunship or tank requires giving him superhuman powers. If your genre conventions forbid that, then you must look outside the infantryman and let him go to the quartermaster to pickup a stinger or TOW missile.

The Wizard already has super-human powers. The idea that the Fighter can't have them because he didn't read a magic book is just poor reasoning.

In D&D terms the fighter needs magic items, or a flying mount, or a team of guys with a catapult. You can do this.

Sure, but that still doesn't solve the original problem, it only covers it up with new layers that look pretty. The Wizard can still decimate castles, form their own planes, and kill with a word.

A flying mount is not flying. A team of guys with a catapult is not the ability to cast fireballs. I mean think about the logistics required to move, aim, maintain and operate a catapult. When you need a team of 10 horses just to move it and a quarry for ammunition, the guy who can guy "Shooba-dooba!" and wiggle his fingers still outstrips them in power.

What you cannot do is make a guy with a big knife the equal of a man who commands the elements and the forces of life and death. Or at least, not without turning him into Goku. And you also cannot insist that I play Dragonball RPG when I wanted to play D&D.

Then perhaps the problem is that the guy who commands the power of life and death and the forces of the elements shouldn't. I can however insist that there is no logical reason to say Fighter Dude needs to be bound to the laws of physics when Wizard Guy is not.

The laws of physics are either absolute, or they are not.

Do we want wizards who can do the impossible? Yes.
Do we want mighty warriors? Yes.
Do we want some semblence of parity between them? Yes.
Can we do that without giving the warrior supernatural abilities? No.
Can we do that by making the supernatural abilities external to the warrior? Yes.

To #3: yes we can, by nerfing casters.
To #4: no we can't. We can give them similar abilities in a few situations, but the comparable power levels will never match up.

Each of these can and should be a module. As for which one forms the 'base' module? Clearly a gladiatorial deathmatch is the only fair way to determine a winner.

If only politics were this simple.

4E was the first edition that gave all PCs the survivability and the tools (like At Will powers for spell casters) to possibly even be considered heroes who could hold off waves of attacking kobolds. Anymore, the word hero is banded about right and left. But when AD&D first came out, it was a word reserved for 4th level Fighters and NPCs out of Deities and Demigods. When AD&D first came out, PCs were Acolytes and Apprentices, not heroes. They were cautious because they were vulnerable, they weren't cocky because they were so tough.

By the RAW, yes, 4e significantly buffed players and debuffed NPCs.

In my game I buffed NPCs and almost killed my party in every encounter. ALMOST. 4e May have made PCs significantly more powerful, but it is fairly easy to tune up the NPCs to make them a credible threat. PCs are only ever overpowered if you let them be.

 

[KarinsDad]

Why are you turning this into an edition war? I was actually making reference in part to a 3E campaign I was part of when I was talking about heroic PCs at first level. This isn't an edition thing, it is a playstyle thing. I could run a 1E campaign with heroic characters at first level if I really wanted, since much of that feel is built through campaign and narrative choices.

Sorry, but this political correctness that someone cannot even discuss an edition without edition warring doesn't fly.

4E is the edition where PCs were given high survivability at first level and it is also the edition where all PCs were given At Will repeatable abilities that match their schtick. Hence, 4E is the first edition where all PCs could be considered heroic at first level.

My first PC pre-1E died in round one of the very first encounter I played him in. One cannot claim that this is a heroic PC.

In any case, "superhero" (I prefer the term mythic, myself) level characters of all classes must exist in D&D, even if it is just in an add-on module. There is an obvious demand for them among various elements of D&D's fanbase. Or are you opposed to the idea even as an add-on module?

You obviously did not read my earlier posts in this thread where I repeatedly stated that having these types of abilities in a add-on is perfectly fine. I just don't want them in core.

 

[Andor]

Being two-faced about physics is intellectually dishonest. Either we apply the rules to everyone, or we don't. The laws of physics are either absolute, or they are not.

Garbage. If you walk to talk about two-faced logic read your own post.

Magic is power of and over the supernatural. The supernatural is by definition beyond the laws of physics, that is what it means.

So a wizard or cleric or any other magic weilding character has abilities which are impossible without using magic.

Now you can make a perfectly valid arguement that in a world where supernatural power is available everyone should use it. And in that world a 'non-magicusing' character makes no sense. And indeed that is the setup for some worlds ands styles of play and that is just fine. But frankly that is not old school D&D.

From Basic to 2nd edition the design of D&D was in large part informed by Swords & Sorcery novels like the Conan or Fafhrd books. In those books magic is not so easily achieved. A wizard might need 30 years of grueling study before he casts his first cantrip. Most people don't and can't do it. They don't have the time or money for the luxury of study. So in those books magic is in the hands of only a tiny elite, guy with sword is just as bound by physics as you or I.

D&D is also informed by the classic Knightly tales, in which magic is either a Holy gift or an infernal curse. In these, again, guy with a sword is bound by physics. (Or possibly he is a Paladin and blessed with divine powers, which by and large did not include flying and blasting.)

The rules are arbitrary, they only exist because someone wants them to.

Yes, exactly. And who are you to tell us we're wrong? Why are your wants important but ours are poorly-reasoned, two-faced and intellectually dishonest?

A flying mount is not flying.

Sorry, but this is just pathetic. It's not merely that the fighter needs to have all the wizards toys, he needs to have them in exactly the same way? My brother flew over from England a couple of days ago, shall I tell him to go back and swim this time because an airplane isn't really flying? A flight spell can't have it's wings bound by a net. A griffin doesn't fall out of the sky in an anti-magic zone. Everything has pluses and minuses.

Why is it exactly that it is so offensive to you that the game should try to accomodate tastes besides your own, given that NO ONE in the thread has suggested that wuxia/anime/Mighty Thor styled play shoud not be included in the base books as modules? Why is all the hostility in this thread coming from the new schoolers who apparently don't want to even be presented with the option of playstyles they don't wish to use? Is the thought of warriors who actually need to walk rather than fly about like Neo really enough to make you weep?

 

[KarinsDad]

Oh yeah, sure -- other than the mystical kung fu abilities, there is little to distinguish the 1E monk from its monastic European counterparts. St Benedict of Nursia was renowned for his quivering palm...

Quivering Palm came from the Destroyer series and the fictional Sinanju martial arts form. It wasn't historical at all. Brian Blume created the monk class, not Gary. It was taking a book series and putting the protagonist into D&D. Gary later claimed that his Monk came from Shaolin monks, but Gary didn't create the monk and it wasn't really historical Asian culture at all. It was Remo Williams. Granted, one could claim that Remo Williams was influenced by historical Asian culture, but he was influenced by a lot of other things as well.

If one looks at the original monk in Men & Magic, it's more of a divine religious order that Clerics could go into.

"Monks (Order of Monastic Martial Arts), a sub-class of Clerics which also combines the general attributes of Thief and Fighting Man."

Monks could speak with animals and speak with plants. Is that Asian in influence?

Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and Temple of the Frog God are equally examples of the strict genre discipline of AD&D.

I too want the ability to run a western-only game. But it doesn't bother me if strict attention to genre requires a short list of "don't take this" material.

The problem I've seen historically, and yes, I know the tired argument that a DM can just disallow something, is that if material is published in core, players feel 100% entitled to play it. They paid good money for the PHB after all. So to me, core should be core. Stuff that is not corner cases. Stuff that is the main rules and the main races and the main classes.

Expedition to the Barrier Peaks felt non-D&D even when it was released. People didn't like it and similar adventures, and these type of mixed technology type adventures and such mostly disappeared. People who liked that type of thing eventually played GURPS. For every one adventure like EttBP, there are two hundred that don't do this type of thing. Even Eberron is careful to indicate for the most part that their planes, trains, and robots use magic, not technology, to propel them.

So yes, an exception to the basic genre rule here and there doesn't mean that WotC should just let any old idea into 5E. 5E should be pretty hard core D&D and the Gamma World and Star Wars and Oriental Adventures and Planescape and other genre influences should be left for add-on modules. IMO. Even things like Psionics should show up in an add-on module. There's just not enough room in a core book for shoehorn everything in.

 

[SKyOdin]

Sorry, but this political correctness that someone cannot even discuss an edition without edition warring doesn't fly.

4E is the edition where PCs were given high survivability at first level and it is also the edition where all PCs were given At Will repeatable abilities that match their schtick. Hence, 4E is the first edition where all PCs could be considered heroic at first level.

My first PC pre-1E died in round one of the very first encounter I played him in. One cannot claim that this is a heroic PC.

It would be pretty easy to house-rule 1E PCs to have more starting hitpoints. Alternatively, I could house-rule the rules such that PCs simply don't die when they run out of hitpoints, and let them have a certain number of second chances. Furthermore, I could play up heroic flavor easily through descriptions, altering monsters, and other campaign level decisions. D&D is by its nature very flexible, and house-ruling is a well established part of its tradition. Since older editions didn't have as hard and fast rules for task resolution, it would be pretty easy to make rulings such that a 1st level PC can jump 30 feet into the air with a proper strength check.

It's not like many people played 1E with the rules as written anyways, from what I hear.

You obviously did not read my earlier posts in this thread where I repeatedly stated that having these types of abilities in a add-on is perfectly fine. I just don't want them in core.

Then why are you jumping on everyone who says that they want heroic styled D&D, but would be content to have it as an optional module? When I said that above, you started attacking me with claims that I was using flawed logic. If you agree that it is okay as an optional module, then you are just using picking fights with posters such as myself for no legitimate reason.

 

[Ratskinner]

I really dislike both the terms "mundane" and "super" in this context... It really does irritate me how people equate "not strictly realistic" with comic book superheroes (an association with all kinds of messy implications and assumptions that mischaracterize other's preferences). It also irritates me that anything in a fantasy game like D&D be bound by the word "mundane." Even a non magical character is a character of fantasy, and shouldn't be as boring as the word "mundane" implies.

That's why I used the quotes...I don't know of accepted terminology for the playstyles in question. If there are such terms, people don't seem to use them. I've seen other people get offended by "Wuxia" or "Anime". If you have another suggestion, I'm all ears.

My annoyances with your phrasing aside, I wouldn't really break things up into merely low-powered and high-powered, with some assumption that low-powered is less complex and high-powered is more complex. Rather, I'd say the baseline is somewhere between, in the realm of typical fantasy assumptions. "Gritty" play where characters start off as weaklings and anyone can die at any time would like be a more complex rules addition. "High-powered" play where characters are capable of impressive feats and can cheat death is likely a step more complicated than normal. At the same time, a concept of "high-powered gritty", where everyone is more powerful but more at risk of death at any time, is a feasible combination of the two. They would both be modules that add on to the more simple baseline.

I don't have any assumption on what is easier to start with. I've played plenty of other systems with dirt-simple rules and flavor running from gritty to wild supers. So it isn't like one has to be more complicated than the other by default (and thus be disqualified as a simple core.) Maybe there isn't a place that's easiest? I generally agree with using modules (small or large) to dial it up or down, or even in particular flavor directions. I also think those are probably necessary given the general architecture of D&D. What I'm not sure of is whether there is a "best" starting place from a design point of view for the basic/core game to start with as its assumption.

I also disagree with an assumption you make earlier in your post, about how "epic" play and "castles and kings" play are diverging paths for the game. They are certainly both options for high-level play, but they are not incompatible. A character who can cut the sky with his sword can still be a leader and king, and that option of combining both options should be valid. Romance of the Three Kingdoms style play should an option.

I agree, but the mixture is far more rare that one or the other. Arguments in other threads seem to indicate that they at least need to be separate modules, and having one or the other as a baseline seems imprudent to me as it would alienate one or the other fanbase.

Overall, I think the important point is to not think in binary terms of "one or the other" for this kind of thing, and to certainly not try to put your preference forward as the natural default and someone else's preference as the "option". Generally, such a system works a lot better if the middle ground is the default.

Assuming there is a middle ground, sure. However, as you mention above you can do both as once (and maybe a third or fourth style of high-level play.) I suspect we need more of a neutral ground, rather than splitting the difference. What does that neutral ground look like for higher level play? What implications (if any) does it have for lower level play? Do certain spells or abilities need to be restricted to higher levels by default?

 

[Ratskinner]

D&D can't be all things to everybody(not should it try--that would result in a clumsy, poorly-designed system IMO); but it can excel at being D&D if only people would stop trying to shoehorn in a lot of features from other genres that just plain don't fit.

I'm not sure about this, for the range of things in discussion. Especially with modular design, things could vary quite a bit. Even 2e games were very diverse, depending on the houserules, Dragon classes, boxed sets, treasure/magic allotment, and options (both small 'o' and capitol 'O') that the DM allowed. Fundamentally D&Dish systems have been used for just about any genre I can think of.

I would agree that the "D&Dish" way has limitations in playstyle that are pretty ingrained. If you want a highly narrative, political, mystery game with heavy player-control, where combat is a rarity and people don't "level up"...you're probably better off starting with another game system like FATE or something. Even then, though, I know there are groups play that kind of game with D&D characters...its just not a terribly rules-based/supported way of playing.

 

[Ratskinner]

Except there is an absolute ton of literary and mythological precedent for fighters being able to do completely amazing feats that fly in the face of realism. Non-wizards being able to do amazing things is a well-established part of the broader fantasy genre.

I agree, however, there are also many sources where the opposite is also true. Song of Fire and Ice is a fairly popular recent example. I am hopeful that 5e will support both types of play equally well.