Heroes, Zeroes, and Kings

[Mattachine]

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?

The badwrongfun suggestion was yours. I merely pointed out two other alternatives for a starting point (whereas you referenced OD&D). My personal preference is to use something BECMI as a starting point, by the way.

Like so many of these threads, I have suggested alternatives, rather than stating the "best" way, or even my preferred way.

 

[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.

The badwrongfun suggestion was yours. I merely pointed out two other alternatives for a starting point (whereas you referenced OD&D). My personal preference is to use something BECMI as a starting point, by the way.

Like so many of these threads, I have suggested alternatives, rather than stating the "best" way, or even my preferred way.

The argument I presented, which you have not addressed, is that it is easier to start simple and add complexity than it is to start complex and pare down to simplicity.

I have not suggested a single system tool to be used in the base 5e system, merely the playstyle that should be the goal. And yet n00bdragon is hyperventilating in the corner with visions of thac0 charts haunting his nightmares, and you are saying that is too simple for modern gamers and we should use a boardgame instead.

This thread is not about numbers and system tools, it is about fluff. Should a high level fighter be Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan or should he be Goku or Himura Kenshin or should he be Thor or CuChulain. Is he bound by physics and gravity or are they of no more consequence to him than they are to the wizard?

If there is not even an option for the system to portray a warrior who does not have mojo that lets him hop tall buildings in a single bound then 5e will fail in its primary design goals.

So why are some people against the very concept?

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

Combine that with a few feats...like I said, subtle, not as explicit as 4e. I was not making the claim that its "always" been in D&D, just pointing out that it crept into 3e.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

Having recently had the chance to go back and revisit 1e briefly, and currently being in a BECMI-based game....I would argue this isn't true. (I've only seen OD&D from a distance.) The multiple subsystems each with its own resolution system are something of a nightmare. There are plenty of indie and OSR games that do a better job at being simple and being D&D despite that lack of copyrighted name. (IMHO, YMMV, IANAL, etc. )

For better or worse, though, I think that WOTC's definition of "simple" is going to be a fair bit more complicated than the philosophical ideal of a "simple D&D game." Its got to have enough bits and working parts that extra modules and splatbooks can be bolted on, and the simplest of those Indie games don't have enough meat to do that.

 

[Ratskinner]

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).

I agree that "martial" characters were simpler than casters and didn't get as complicated, but even fighters and thieves had more magic items, multiple attacks, and proficiencies. Additionally, they often had to keep track of the "(de)buff" spell effects cast on or around them by the casters.

I'm just saying that D&D sort of implicitly assumes that you'll have more things to worry about as you level up. The level of complexity and its growth rate varies a lot between classes and editions.

 

[Endur]

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.

Been there, experienced that.

 

[Endur]

Having recently had the chance to go back and revisit 1e briefly, and currently being in a BECMI-based game....I would argue this isn't true. (I've only seen OD&D from a distance.) The multiple subsystems each with its own resolution system are something of a nightmare. .

I can't comment on BECMI as I had moved on to AD&D before BECMI came out. I can comment on the B2 basic D&D boxed set though. The basic D&D book with B2 Keep on the Borderlands is extremely easy to play. Character levels go to 3 (with some NPCs as high as 6). All you really need to understand is how to roll to hit, how to roll saves, how to roll turn undead, and thief skills. All the charts fit on two pages.

 

[triqui]

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.

That's the problem, it's not exactly "a few feet".

A lvl 16 fighter with all his ranks in jump has about 30 in jumping, including magic items. With a roll of 20, his record would be 50 feet.

 

[Mattachine]

The argument I presented, which you have not addressed, is that it is easier to start simple and add complexity than it is to start complex and pare down to simplicity.

I have not suggested a single system tool to be used in the base 5e system, merely the playstyle that should be the goal. And yet n00bdragon is hyperventilating in the corner with visions of thac0 charts haunting his nightmares, and you are saying that is too simple for modern gamers and we should use a boardgame instead.

This thread is not about numbers and system tools, it is about fluff. Should a high level fighter be Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan or should he be Goku or Himura Kenshin or should he be Thor or CuChulain. Is he bound by physics and gravity or are they of no more consequence to him than they are to the wizard?

If there is not even an option for the system to portray a warrior who does not have mojo that lets him hop tall buildings in a single bound then 5e will fail in its primary design goals.

So why are some people against the very concept?

I'm not against the concept--I merely offered multiple suggestions for a starting point. Your responses seem overly defensive.

I don't think it is best to start with the simplest conceivable complexity. A minority of players will play that simplest complexity, which means the majority will be using add-ons. I am reminded of the thread that was talking about "starting too close to zero".

Starting with a low level of complexity is a great idea (which I prefer, like I said), but provide a module to go even simpler, and then others to build upward in complexity and power.

Start with the complexity and power level that is common to the greatest number of gamers.

Don't force the majority to start with add-ons.

Don't create a "mod tax" in 5e's system.

Don't create D&D GURPS.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Those editions of D&D are not necessarily less complex, only older.

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.

The problem with fans of the "good old days" is that much like people who see the 1950's as the height of America, they tend to view those things at the expense of everyone else. That those were the "best", and their attitude towards other playstyles is little different from the attitude you see against them. They have for years claimed that anything other than their favored edition was badwrongfun, and naturally reap what they sow.

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?

The discussion hasn't been about supporting a playstyle. It's been about putting a specific system and playstyle as the default one, upon which all others are "modules" of. That's where the hostility comes from, that everyone except these oldschoolers only get to be an "accessory" to D&D, while them and them alone get to be core.