Heroes, Zeroes, and Kings

[Ratskinner]

While you are at it, why don't you point out where the Wuxia is in 3E? A core book? Or a few splat books (like book of 9 swords which didn't come out until 2006) printed years after the many editions and sub-editions of core?

Its in the PHB. Level 5 is about the max for normal human skills and abilities. Read this for details, particularly the part about Jumping. Its part of the motivation behind the E6 rules. Its subtle, but its there.

 

[TwinBahamut]

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.

You know, I really don't know if there even is good terminology for this. Any kind of shorthand one-word description would probably end up with problematic connotations or would lead to differing interpretations from different people. "High-powered," "flashy," or "cinematic" are possibilities, but I don't think any of those alone are ideal. This really is a source of difficulty in talking about this kind of issue, isn't it?

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?

This is a very good question. I'll need to work my way through this a bit...

If we start from low level play, it might be a bit easier. At low levels, I'd say it isn't too hard to start off with three common types of play and one uncommon type, as I mentioned in a previous post. There is "default fantasy", where groups of heroes fight monsters and have a perfectly reasonable chance of surviving, but don't do much flashy stuff. There is "gritty fantasy", where people fight monsters and have a pretty poor chance of surviving. There is "flashy fantasy", where heroes do cool stuff and have a good chance at surviving. And finally there is "gritty, flashy fantasy", where people both do cool things and tend to die a lot. Gritty fantasy I would associate with optional mechanics like more dangerous healing/wounding rules, weapon degradation, a chance of instant death in almost any attack (though not necessarily random), and so on. Flashy fantasy I would associate with more complex mechanics designed to make characters seem more awesome like stunt rules, action points, fancier powers, and so on. Default fantasy is simple, and flashy/gritty fantasy just combines both aspect of those rules. It's not perfect, but I think this idea touches on a lot of key playstyle differences.

Now, as for how this translates into higher level play... For the most part, I think the same spectrum of grittiness and flashiness applies. Grittiness brings more possibility of death, and flashiness brings more options to avoid death. High-level grittiness favors things like Save or Die spells, and high-level flashiness favors things like "Once per day, when you die" tricks. High-level default lacks either for simplicity's sake, and high-level gritty/flashiness has characters bouncing back from save or die attacks with their "when you die" defenses.

Something like becoming a king or ruling a stronghold would be rather unrelated to that spectrum, I believe. Such a thing would probably be rooted in the same mechanics as hiring mercenaries and servants to assist in dungeon exploration, which could come into play at very low levels. I suppose this would be a third optional element to the game that could be layered on to the default or on to the other options.

I guess this gets back to your question of "what does the default look like at higher level play?" I guess the answer would be that it is simple, compared to other options. It would lack many character options provided by those other modules, so characters would have fewer class features (maybe?), but the mathematical baseline would probably be the same. Wizards would have fireballs, Fighters would make attacks, and so on. I suppose the thing about a stripped-down default is that it wouldn't be all that remarkable in any particular way, other than that it would be quick and easy to run.

 

[KarinsDad]

Its in the PHB. Level 5 is about the max for normal human skills and abilities. Read this for details, particularly the part about Jumping. Its part of the motivation behind the E6 rules. Its subtle, but its there.

To me, there's an extremely big difference between being able to jump a few extra feet beyond world class level on a long jump and wuxia where 20 foot upwards vertical jumps can occur. 5% or 10% over the limit vs. 900% over the limit.

This just means that the 3E designers were lazy. To use this to claim that wuxia was always in D&D is in error. Go back and check 1E and 2E.

 

[n00bdragon]

But frankly that is not old school D&D.

I thought this was about where 5th edition SHOULD go rather than where OD&D did go.

 

[Andor]

I thought this was about where 5th edition SHOULD go rather than where OD&D did go.

True. However 5e has the explicit goal of being an edition that all 'schools' of player can enjoy.

We have a general concensus that it is easiest in terms of design to start from the simplest base and then allow modular additive complexity rather than starting with a complex system and trying to add modular simplicity.

Since ye olde school D&D is the simplest form of the art, it is only logical that emulating it it the goal of the base system.

If the simplest form of 5e cannot capture the interest of the grognards, then WotC will have failed in one of their basic design goals, just like they will have failed if the 5 e dials cannot be tweaked to create a playstyle that the 4e school of thought enjoys.

5e is supposed to be the One Ring. It unites and binds us all into eternal servitude and wraithdom for our dark masters, the Wizards of the Coast.

 

[n00bdragon]

Since ye olde school D&D is the simplest form of the art, it is only logical that emulating it it the goal of the base system.

Oh boy! You sure showed me. I guess we'll need to go back to the THAC0 and racial level limits. Oh, my bad. Those are pretty new inventions (and are therefore terrible). We need to go back to an unrelated assortment of charts and tables covering everything this side of random harlots. But even that is too new. What we really need is to take the ultra "simplistic" (merely because it is old) rules of Chainmail.

 

[Endur]

Now, I'd be happy if they came up with a way for 15th level characters to be the same "difficulty/complexity" to play as first level characters, but I think that would be hard to fit into the D&D paradigm.

In AD&D, fighters and thieves were not much more complicated at 15th level versus 1st level. Wizards and clerics were considerably more complicated though (1 spell versus lots).

 

[Mattachine]

True. However 5e has the explicit goal of being an edition that all 'schools' of player can enjoy.

We have a general concensus that it is easiest in terms of design to start from the simplest base and then allow modular additive complexity rather than starting with a complex system and trying to add modular simplicity.

Since ye olde school D&D is the simplest form of the art, it is only logical that emulating it it the goal of the base system.

If the simplest form of 5e cannot capture the interest of the grognards, then WotC will have failed in one of their basic design goals, just like they will have failed if the 5 e dials cannot be tweaked to create a playstyle that the 4e school of thought enjoys.

5e is supposed to be the One Ring. It unites and binds us all into eternal servitude and wraithdom for our dark masters, the Wizards of the Coast.

Many of us would disagree. Simplest system and first system do not make OD&D the automatic starting point.
For some gamers, OD&D is too simple to feel like D&D. For others, the Castle Ravenloft boardgame would be a good starting place.

 

[Andor]

Many of us would disagree. Simplest system and first system do not make OD&D the automatic starting point.
For some gamers, OD&D is too simple to feel like D&D. For others, the Castle Ravenloft boardgame would be a good starting place.

I did not say od&d is the base. I said emulating it is the simplest level of the D&D game, and therefore what 5e with all the dials set to off should approximate. Actually I said AD&D, not BECMI since I think even the basest of basic new D&D should split up races and classes.

Now, given that we are expecting a 5e system that comes, from the box, with a set of modules/complexity dials that also allow it to emulate 3e/4e, etc, it will ALSO support more modern playstyles.

Not once has anyone in this thread suggested 5e should not support a modern playstyle, but apparently the good old days were badwrongfun and the people who started this hobby are now the enemy that must be held off at all costs.

Would one of you like to explain this naked hostility to the rules being capable of supporting a playstyle that no one is going to force you to use?

 

[Argyle King]

Personally, I find it easier to design a simpler and more grounded base and then add more outlandish elements later. While going the opposite way is possible, I believe it's more difficult.